[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
________________________ FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
No. 06-11102 ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 28, 2006
________________________ THOMAS K. KAHN
CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 04-01148 CV-BE-E
PAUL STEADMAN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
CALHOUN COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION,
H. JACKY SPARKS, individually and in his
official capacity as Superintendent,
Calhoun County Board of Education,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Alabama
_________________________
(December 28, 2006)
Before DUBINA and WILSON, Circuit Judges, and CORRIGAN,* District Judge.
PER CURIAM:
______________________
*Honorable Timothy J. Corrigan, United States District Judge for the Middle District of
Florida, sitting by designation.
Appellant Paul Steadman (“Steadman”) was employed by the Walter
Wellborn High School (“WWHS”) as a physical education teacher, assistant
varsity football coach, and head varsity basketball coach. Steadman began
working for WWHS in August of 2002, and he was terminated in May of 2004.
WWHS is under the direction of the Calhoun County School Board (the “Board”).
After his termination, Steadman filed a 10-count complaint alleging (1) race
discrimination by association under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (2) retaliation based on race
association under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (3) retaliation based on exercise of protected
speech under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, (4) denial of due process by stigmatization, (5)
negligent hiring, (6) negligent retention, (7) negligent supervision, (8)
suppression, (9) intentional infliction of emotional distress, and (10) defamation.
More specifically, in his complaint, Steadman claims that WWHS’s
principal, Ed Whatley (“Whatley”), discriminated against the school’s African
American students, and that Whatley fired him because of his association with
D.G., an African American student at WWHS.
In response to the complaint, the appellees argued that the Board did not
renew Steadman’s contract because of a faculty realignment resulting from the
head football coach Mike Battles’s resignation, Steadman’s poor job performance,
2
student discipline issues, anticipated loss of teacher units, and Steadman’s
indication that he would retire at the end of the year.
The district court granted the appellees’ motion for summary judgment as
to all counts and dismissed the complaint with prejudice.
We review de novo the district court's entry of summary judgment, applying
the same legal standards as the district court. Jackson v. State of Alabama State
Tenure Comm'n, 405 F.3d 1276, 1289 (11th Cir. 2005). Summary judgment is
appropriate if there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c).
The issues presented on appeal are (1) whether Steadman abandoned his
claims by failing to respond to the appellees’ summary judgment arguments; and
(2) whether the district court erred in entering summary judgment in favor of the
appellees on Steadman’s claims of discrimination, retaliation, and negligence.
After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the
benefit of oral argument, we affirm the district court’s entry of summary judgment
in all respects. Although we do not condone the obvious racist remarks made by
Whatley, Steadman nevertheless loses this case. It is clear from the record that
Steadman abandoned counts two (retaliation based on race discrimination), four
(denial of due process by stigmatization), eight (suppression), nine (intentional
3
infliction of emotional distress), and ten (defamation). Moreover, the district court
correctly held that the Board was immune in its official capacity from Steadman’s
§ 1983 claims and that Steadman did not present a prima facie case of
discrimination for exercise of his First Amendment right to association.
Additionally, the district court correctly held that Steadman’s claim under § 1983
for retaliation for the exercise of free speech fails, as a matter of law, because
Steadman’s speech was not a matter of public concern.
Finally, the district court correctly held that Article I, § 14 of the Alabama
Constitution immunizes the Board from Steadman’s state law claims, and that
Superintendent Jacky Sparks is due state-agent immunity from Steadman’s
negligence claims.
AFFIRMED.
4