The opinion
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
For the Fifth Circuit
No. 99-20059
Summary Calendar
NANCY T. KING,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
VERSUS
BOARD OF REGENTS, of Texas Southern University;
ENOS CABELL, in His Official Capacity as Chairman
of the Board of Regents of Texas Southern University;
JAMES M. DOUGLAS, in His Official Capacity as
President of Texas Southern University and Individually;
JAMES GINN, Individually; JOANN HORTON, Individually,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Southern District of Texas
(H-97-CV-446)
June 21, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DeMOSS, and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Nancy T. King ("King") was employed by Texas Southern
University ("TSU") as a mathematics teacher under a series of one-
year contracts beginning with the 1991-92 academic year and ending
*
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opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under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.
with the 1995-96 academic year. Beginning in 1995, King applied
for appointment as an assistant professor in the Mathematics
Department on tenure track. Her first application and subsequent
applications were denied. King filed her original complaint in
February 1997, against the Board of Regents of Texas Southern
University and various individual defendants in both their official
and individual capacities. King claimed violations of her right to
due process under the Fourteenth Amendment and her right to free
speech under the First Amendment. The trial court dismissed the
due process claim on summary judgment. The case was tried on the
First Amendment free speech claim to a jury. Based on the jury’s
answers and their verdict, the district court entered a Final
Judgment that King take nothing by her suit. King moved for a new
trial which was denied and King now appeals to this Court.
We have carefully reviewed the briefs, the reply brief, the
record excerpts, and relevant portions of the record itself. For
the reasons stated by the district judge in her Memorandum and
Opinion filed under date of December 22, 1998, we are satisfied
that the district judge did not commit reversible error in her
rulings on King’s motions for judgment as a matter of law and for
new trial. Accordingly, the Final Judgment herein is
AFFIRMED.
2