From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Harp v. Clemens

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Aug 2, 1972
464 F.2d 1028 (6th Cir. 1972)

Opinion

No. 71-1746.

August 2, 1972.

H. E. Miller, Jr., McMurry Livingston, Paducah, Ky., for plaintiff-appellant.

John C. Darsie, Jr., Lexington, Ky., for defendants-appellees; R. Bruce Lankford, Lexington, Ky., on brief.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Kentucky.

Before PHILLIPS, Chief Judge, KENT, Circuit Judge, and O'SULLIVAN, Senior Circuit Judge.


Paul Harp was a probationary instructor at Paducah Community College of the University of Kentucky, employed under a one year contract which had been renewed annually from 1965 to 1971. He applied at that time for tenure and a promotion to senior instructor status which was a necessary requisite for him to continue teaching. His application was denied.

He filed this action under 28 U.S.C. § 1343 and 42 U.S.C. § 1983, against the Board of Trustees of the University of Kentucky and officials of Paducah Community College, contending that he was entitled to a statement of the reasons for the denial of his application and to a hearing.

District Judge Rhodes Bratcher dismissed the action and Harp appeals.

We affirm on authority of Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) and Orr v. Trinter, 444 F.2d 128 (6th Cir. 1971), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 943, 92 S.Ct. 2847, 33 L.Ed.2d 767 (1972).


Summaries of

Harp v. Clemens

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit
Aug 2, 1972
464 F.2d 1028 (6th Cir. 1972)
Case details for

Harp v. Clemens

Case Details

Full title:PAUL HARP, PLAINTIFF-APPELLANT, v. DONALD J. CLEMENS, DIRECTOR OF PADUCAH…

Court:United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit

Date published: Aug 2, 1972

Citations

464 F.2d 1028 (6th Cir. 1972)

Citing Cases

Stout v. Whiteaker

" Orr v. Trinter, supra, at 134. This pronouncement, however, and those subsequently rendered by this circuit…

Plummer v. Bd., Regents, Murray St. University

We agree with the District Court that the facts of the present case are readily distinguishable from those in…