[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FILED
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
________________________ ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
AUGUST 28, 2007
No. 07-11860 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
________________________
D. C. Docket No. 06-00032-CV-DHB-1
PAMELA GARNETT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
STATE OF GEORGIA, through its Governor,
Sonny Perdue, that created and operates the
Georgia Department of Human Resources,
All jointly and severally, and in conspiracy with one another,
B. J. WALKER, Commissioner of the Georgia
Department of Human Resources,
ROSA WAYMAN, Office of the Georgia Department
of Human Resources Management & Development,
JANET OLIVIA, Director of the Georgia Department
of Family and Children Services,
STEPHEN LOVE, Deputy Director of the Georgia
Department of Family and Children Services,
sued individually and in their official capacity,
All jointly and severally, and in conspiracy with one another,
et al.,
Defendants-Appellees.
________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Georgia
_________________________
(August 28, 2007)
Before BIRCH, CARNES and HILL, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:
Pamela Garnett filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the State of Georgia,
through its Governor, Sonny Perdue (State), the Georgia Department of Human
Resources (GDHR), eight individuals, in their official capacities as state employees
and as individuals, and John and Jane Doe defendants, whose names and/or
identities are not known, jointly and severally, and in conspiracy with one another.
In two separate orders issued on the same day, January 3, 2007, the district court
granted motions to dismiss filed by the State and the GDHR and the eight
individuals.1 We affirm.
Garnett was an administrative operations manager employed by the
Richmond County Department of Family and Children Services (DFCS). She was
terminated on March 3, 2004. In her seven-count complaint, Garnett seeks
1
Four months later, and unopposed by the defendants, the district court granted Garnett’s
motion to amend the two January 3 orders, deeming certification appropriate as “there is no just
reason for delay,” in that final judgment respecting Garnett and the named defendants would not
prejudice any claims against the unknown John and Jane Doe defendants. Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b).
2
compensatory and punitive damages, and also asks for injunctive relief to be
reinstated in her previous employment position.
In Count I of her complaint, Garnett claims that she was terminated in
retaliation for her actions in instituting proceedings related to the enforcement of
the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). 29 U.S.C. § 201 et seq. Count II claims that
defendants continued their retaliatory conduct under the FLSA when they failed to
rehire her. Counts III, IV and V set forth claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for
violations of Garnett’s constitutional right of free speech, also claiming that her
termination violated substantive and procedural due process rights. Count VI sets
forth a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. Count VII alleges a violation of the Georgia
Whistle Blower statute, O.C.G.A. § 45-1-4.2
We have carefully reviewed the record and the briefs and the arguments of
counsel contained therein. The district court correctly analyzed the claims asserted
by Garnett and the controlling law in each of its two January 3 orders granting the
named defendants’ motions to dismiss. Finding no error, the judgment of the
district court is
AFFIRMED.
2
For purposes of this appeal, Garnett acquiesced in the dismissal of the State. Neither
does she challenge the district court’s rulings as to her FSLA claims, nor does she dispute that
she failed to state a substantive due process claim.
3