The opinion
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS April 22, 2004
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
No. 03-60747
Summary Calendar
JOANNE MAHAFFEY,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
WINSTON COUNTY SHERIFF’S DEPARTMENT;
JOHNNY HOLDINESS, individually and in his official capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
--------------------
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:02-CV-250-JAI
--------------------
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, DAVIS and PRADO, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Joanne Mahaffey appeals the magistrate judge’s grant of
summary judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights
suit. Mahaffey argues that the magistrate judge erred when he
concluded that she failed to state a First Amendment civil rights
claim arising from the circumstances under which she was fired
from her position as a deputy sheriff with the Winston County,
Mississippi, Sheriff’s Department.
*
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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
No. 03-60747
-2-
Mahaffey argues that she was fired by Sheriff Holdiness
after informing him that she would not be voting for him in an
upcoming election. She argues that her dismissal was therefore a
political patronage dismissal in violation of the First
Amendment. However, the summary judgment evidence, and in
particular Mahaffey’s own deposition testimony, indicates that
Mahaffey and Sheriff Holdiness had a contentious relationship and
there were numerous ongoing disputes on a variety of matters
between Holdiness and Mahaffey. Additionally, in the same
conversation in which Mahaffey informed Holdiness that she would
not be voting for him, she also accused him of illegal
wrongdoing. Mahaffey’s only evidence that her firing was due to
political patronage is her statement that in their final
conversation she and Sheriff Holdiness discussed whether she
would vote for him. This evidence is insufficient to defeat
summary judgment, since a mere scintilla of evidence is
insufficient to defeat a summary judgment motion. See Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 252 (1986). Mahaffey has
failed to set forth evidence establishing that her termination
was politically motivated and therefore has failed to establish
the constitutional violation of a patronage dismissal. See
Correa v. Fischer, 982 F.2d 931, 932 (5th Cir. 1993).
Mahaffey has also failed to establish that her speech was
otherwise protected by the First Amendment. While Mahaffey’s
conversation, which included allegations of wrongdoing on behalf
No. 03-60747
-3-
of a law enforcement official, may have involved a public matter,
the context in which the speech occurred is more indicative of an
employee embroiled in an ongoing employment dispute rather than
of a private citizen intent on rooting out police corruption or
of a concerned citizen voter. See Teague v. City of Flower
Mound, Tex., 179 F.3d 377, 380 (5th Cir. 1999). Mahaffey has
therefore failed to establish that her speech involved a matter
of public concern and has therefore failed to establish the
elements of a First Amendment retaliation claim. See Tharling v.
City of Port Lavaca, 329 F.3d 422, 426 (5th Cir. 2003).
Failure to assert the violation of a constitutional right
results in the failure to overcome the defense of qualified
immunity. See Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226, 231-33 (1991).
The judgment is therefore AFFIRMED.