United States District Court, District of Columbia
David A. Branch, Law Office of David A. Branch and Associates, PLLC, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff.
Denise J. Baker, Dwayne C. Jefferson, Joseph Alphonso Gonzalez, Steven J. Anderson, Office of Attorney General, Washington, DC, for Defendant.
GRANTING DEFENDANT'S RENEWED MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
RUDOLPH CONTRERAS, District Judge.
Plaintiff, Prateek Dave, is an Indian-American former cadet with the District of Columbia's Metropolitan Police Department (" MPD" ). His complaint alleged that MPD failed to advance him and, ultimately, terminated his employment based on his race and national origin and in retaliation for his prior complaints of discrimination. Additionally, plaintiff alleged
that his termination violated the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because he was not given adequate notice or opportunity to be heard. By order of November 9, 2012, 905 F.Supp.2d 1 (D.D.C.2012), the Court dismissed the plaintiff's discrimination and retaliation claims but requested supplemental briefing on the plaintiff's liberty interest due process claim. MPD has now renewed its motion for summary judgment on that claim and it is ripe for consideration. For the reasons set forth below, that motion is GRANTED and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
The facts and procedural history of this case are set forth in this Court's opinion of November 9, 2012, and will not be repeated here. In short, plaintiff's remaining claim is that he had a liberty interest in his employment and the manner in which MPD terminated him without notice or opportunity to be heard stigmatized him and damaged his reputation and foreclosed him from taking advantage of future employment opportunities. The facts applicable to this claim are set forth below.
Plaintiff's termination letter did not state the reason for his termination. [Docket 37, MSJ, Exh. H at DC 2]. Although plaintiff was terminated for misconduct, there is no evidence the District made this information public. In fact, plaintiff claims that, until this litigation, he was unaware that the termination was based on his misconduct. [Docket No. 42 at 8-9]. Since his termination by MPD, plaintiff has not sought employment with another police force because he believes his physical injuries render him incapable of performing the job. Dave Depo. at 74-76. It has been over six years since the termination.
A. Legal Standard for a Fifth Amendment ...