Gray v. Haraway, et al

* 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this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except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.
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
October 14, 2004
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-60035
Summary Calendar
KAREN GRAY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
DAVID M. HARAWAY, PhD, Individually; MARILYN BATEMAN,
Individually; NORTHWEST MISSISSIPPI COMMUNITY COLLEGE,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 2:02-CV-238-P
--------------------
Before DAVIS, SMITH, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges
PER CURIAM:*
Karen Gray appeals the district court’s order granting the
defendants’ motion for summary judgment and dismissing her
42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint. Gray argues that she was terminated
from her job, in which she had a Fourteenth Amendment property
interest, without due process of law. Gray alleges that she was
denied pre-termination process and a post-termination hearing.

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 04-60035
-2-
Gray’s allegations regarding the denial of pre-termination
process are raised for the first time on appeal. Accordingly, they
will not be considered by this court. See Forbush v. J.C. Penney
Co., 98 F.3d 817, 822 (5th Cir. 1996); Varnado v. Lynaugh, 920 F.2d
320, 321 (5th Cir. 1991). The record reflects that Gray failed to
utilize the grievance procedure that was available to her following
her termination. The evidence does not support her contention that
requiring her to utilize the grievance procedure would have been
futile. Accordingly, Gray’s due process rights were not violated.
See Rathjen v. Litchfield, 878 F.2d 836, 838 (5th Cir. 1989). The
judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.

-- 2 of 2 --