Lamont Rogers v. Glenn McCullogh, Jr.

1Rogers actually alleges a violation of the First and Fourth Amendments. However, his
complaint alleges in part that he was denied due process by the federal government; this claim
properly falls under the Fifth Amendment. See U.S. Const. Amend. V.
NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 06a0151n.06
Filed: February 24, 2006
No. 05-5331
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
LAMONT ROGERS,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
GLENN MCCULLOGH, JR., in his Official
Capacity as Director of the Tennessee Valley
Authority,
Defendant-Appellee.
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT
COURT FOR THE EASTERN
DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
O P I N I O N
BEFORE: COLE, CLAY, and GIBBONS, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM. Lamont Rogers filed a complaint in district court alleging that the
Tennessee Valley Authority (“TVA”) violated his rights under the First and Fifth1 Amendments of
the Constitution by retaliating against him when he brought work-place safety problems to the
attention of two federal agencies. The district court granted the TVA’s motion to dismiss, pursuant
to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), for failure to state a claim. Specifically, the district
court held that Rogers’s complaint was preempted by the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978, see Pub.
L. 95-454, 92 Stat. 1111 et seq.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 05-5331
Rogers v. McCullogh
- 2 -
Rogers did not file a response to the TVA’s motion to dismiss, nor did he appeal the
dismissal of his complaint. However, Rogers did file a motion, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
Procedure 60(b), to set aside the judgment dismissing his action. In this motion, Rogers claimed that
his timely reply was lost in transit, and argued that his complaint should not have been dismissed
for failure to state a claim. The district court decided to revisit its judgment, and concluded again
that Rogers’s claim was preempted. Following a careful review of the record and having considered
the arguments of both parties on appeal, we conclude that the district court’s opinion fully addressed
Rogers’s motion and that the court properly ruled in favor of the TVA.
In sum, we AFFIRM the district court’s judgment on the basis of its opinion.

-- 2 of 2 --