UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 08-1308
CLAUDE HOLLAND; LORI HOLLAND,
Plaintiffs – Appellants,
v.
STATE OF MARYLAND; R. HUNTER NELMS; ROBERT VAN METER, Major,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
WICOMICO COUNTY, MARYLAND,
Defendant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Baltimore. Andre M. Davis, District Judge.
(1:06-cv-01649-AMD)
Submitted: December 8, 2008 Decided: January 20, 2009
Before MOTZ, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Vacated and remanded in part; affirmed in part by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Robin R. Cockey, COCKEY, BRENNAN & MALONEY, P.C., Salisbury,
Maryland, for Appellants. Douglas F. Gansler, Attorney General
of Maryland, Elissa D. Levan, Assistant Attorney General,
Baltimore, Maryland, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
2
PER CURIAM:
Claude Holland was employed as a Lieutenant in the
Wicomico County Sheriff’s Department located in the state of
Maryland. After his termination, Holland filed an action under
42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000) alleging causes of action for violations
of his Fourteenth and First Amendment rights relating to his
termination. Holland appeals from the district court’s
March 10, 2007 order granting the Defendants’ motion to dismiss
in part, and the court’s February 25, 2008 final order granting
summary judgment on Holland’s First Amendment claim. On appeal,
Holland raises two issues: (1) whether the district court erred
by dismissing his Fourteenth Amendment reputational claim; and
(2) whether the district court erred by dismissing his First
Amendment claim. For the reasons that follow, we vacate and
remand as to the first issue, and affirm the dismissal of the
second issue.
Holland alleged that his termination, which was
covered in some detail in the local press, cast his reputation
in a negative light. The district court dismissed this claim
noting that as an at-will state employee, Holland did not have a
protected liberty interest sufficient to sustain a due process
challenge to his termination under the Fourteenth Amendment.
The court relied on its own case, Andrew v. Clark, 472 F. Supp.
2d 659 (D. Md. 2007), for this proposition. We find no error
3
with this decision. See generally Am. Mfrs. Mut. Ins.
Co. v. Sullivan, 526 U.S. 40, 59 (1999).
Holland, however, also specifically pled that his
reputation had been damaged by the press coverage of his
termination and that he was given no official notice of why he
was terminated and no opportunity to be heard regarding the
matter. See Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 573 (1972)
(noting that minimal procedural due process owed to a state
employee whose good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at
stake because of what the government has done to him). It is
well established that government employees have a
constitutionally protected liberty interest in their good name,
reputation, honor or integrity, and that this liberty interest
is implicated by public announcement of reasons for an
employee’s discharge. Johnson v. Morris, 903 F.2d 996, 999 (4th
Cir. 1990). Because this issue was summarily dismissed, under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6), we make no finding as to whether
Holland has stated the requisite grounds for relief. See Stone
v. Univ. of Md. Med. Sys. Corp., 855 F.2d 167, 172 n.5 (4th Cir.
1988) (listing necessary factors for relief for such a claim).
Accordingly, we vacate and remand this reputational Roth claim
to the district court for further proceedings consistent with
this opinion.
4
We find that Holland’s First Amendment claim fails.
The speech at issue--here Holland’s candid comments to the
Sheriff regarding the job performance of Holland’s direct
supervisor--are not the type of speech protected by the First
Amendment. Personal grievances, complaints about conditions of
employment, or expressions about other matters of personal
interest do not constitute speech about matters of public
concern that are protected by the First Amendment, but are
matters more immediately concerned with the self-interest of the
speaker as an employee. Stroman v. Colleton County Sch. Dist.,
981 F.2d 152, 156 (4th Cir. 1992); see Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547
U.S. 410, 417-20 (2006); Connick v. Myers, 461 U.S. 138, 142,
147-48 (1983). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s
dismissal of this claim.
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART;
AFFIRMED IN PART
5