[DO NOT PUBLISH]
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
FILED
U.S. COURT OF APPEALS
ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
December 21, 2007
No. 07-13779 THOMAS K. KAHN
Non-Argument Calendar CLERK
D. C. Docket No. 05-01246-CV-ORL-28-DAB
ELAINE M. MEREDITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
SCHOOL BOARD OF OSCEOLA COUNTY, FLORIDA,
JONATHAN R. DAVIS,
individually and in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
(December 21, 2007)
Before TJOFLAT, DUBINA and BLACK, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Appellant Elaine M. Meredith filed suit in the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida against appellees School Board of Osceola
County, Florida, and Jonathan R. Davis, principal at Cypress Elementary School in
Osceola County, alleging breach of contract, defamation, and violation of her
constitutional rights. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of the
appellees, and Meredith then perfected this appeal. We review de novo a district
court’s grant of summary judgment. Battle v. Board of Regents for the State of
Georgia, 468 F.3d 755, 759 (11th Cir. 2006).
On appeal, Meredith challenges only the district court’s entry of summary
judgment on her claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that the appellees violated her First
Amendment rights by retaliating against her for her speech. The speech concerns
a discussion that Meredith had with another teacher at Cypress Elementary School,
where they both taught. After reviewing the record, and reading the parties’
briefs, we conclude that the district court correctly concluded that Meredith’s
speech was not protected speech because her speech did not involve a matter of
public concern but constituted mere gossip or rumors. Even if, however, we
concluded that Meredith’s speech was protected under the First Amendment, we
would still conclude that the district court correctly granted summary judgment in
favor of the appellees because Meredith’s speech had nothing to do with the
2
decision not to renew her contract. The record evidence demonstrates that
Meredith’s contract was not renewed because she had mediocre lesson plans and
because she had a negative impact on staff morale at Cypress Elementary School.
Furthermore, the record demonstrates that the appellees made the non-renewal
decision months before Meredith engaged in the conversation with her fellow
teacher.
Because we conclude that there is no merit to any of the arguments that
Meredith makes in this appeal, we affirm the district court’s grant of summary
judgment.
AFFIRMED.
3