IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
United States Court of Appeals
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT Fifth Circuit
FILED
_____________________ October 25, 2007
No. 07-60374
Summary Calendar Charles R. Fulbruge III
_____________________ Clerk
PERRY LEWIS TURNER, SR.
Plaintiff-Appellant
v.
TUNICA COUNTY MISSISSIPPI,
Defendant-Appellee
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
(2:04-CV-213)
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Perry Lewis Turner, Sr. appeals the district court’s
grant of summary judgment in favor of Defendant-Appellee Tunica County
Mississippi (the “County”), dismissing Turner’s employment discrimination
suit grounded in allegations of retaliation for his protected First Amendment
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH
CIR. R. 47.5.4.
No. 07-60370
speech and racial bias.1 We affirm.
I. FACTS AND PROCEEDINGS
Turner was a longtime employee of the County, previously serving as
its solid waste manager and, most recently, as its director of housing. He lost
the latter job after the County decided to cease administering its housing
program directly and contracted with North Delta Regional Housing
Authority (North Delta) in June 2004 to have North Delta administer that
program in addition to the County’s homeowners’ rehabilitation program,
which was already being administered by North Delta. The summary
judgment evidence does not show that North Delta, a non-state actor, had an
open position available to offer Turner or was under any obligation to hire
him after his position with the County was eliminated by virtue of the
contract between the County and North Delta.
Turner’s claim is grounded in allegations of retaliation for (1) his
running for the position of county supervisor in opposition to a longtime
incumbent, James Dunn (originally a co-defendant in this action who was
earlier dismissed), and complaining of irregularities after Dunn won that re-
1
He does not address his race-based claim on appeal and it is thus deemed
abandoned.
2
No. 07-60370
election; and (2) his prior complaints regarding interference by Dunn and
other supervisors with the operation of the housing program and pressuring
Turner to give preferential treatment to constituents in close proximity to
elections for supervisor. The only evidence proffered by Turner to
demonstrate the required nexus between his potentially protected speech and
the elimination of his job as collateral damage from the County’s outsourcing
the management of the housing authority to North Delta comprised self-
serving, conclusional speculation by Turner alone. Turner conceded as much
on cross-examination, as quoted by the district court in its Memorandum
Opinion; and it defies credulity to speculate that the county supervisors could
or would go to the extreme of contracting in the private sector for the
management of the housing program solely to get rid of a gadfly like Turner.
The same deficiency in the evidence applies to Turner’s claim that the
County retaliated against him by failing to give him another job when his was
eliminated by the contract with North Delta. Even assuming the existence of
sufficient evidence that Turner requested such action, he has adduced no
probative evidence that an appropriate job existed and was vacant or, if it
was, that such job was given to someone else not clearly more qualified than
Turner.
3
No. 07-60370
Our review of the summary judgment record including the
Memorandum Opinion of the district court, and of the applicable law and
arguments presented by counsel for the respective parties in their appellate
briefs, satisfies us that the district court providently granted summary
judgment in favor of the County, dismissing Turner’s employment retaliation
complaint for lack of probative evidence sufficient to create a genuine issue of
material fact and thereby justify consideration by a jury. The district court’s
summary judgment is, in all respects,
AFFIRMED.
4