Andrew Hengel v. Lane County, Oregon, a Political Subdivision of the State of Oregon

8 F.3d 27 NOTICE: Ninth Circuit Rule 36-3 provides that dispositions other than opinions or orders designated for publication are not precedential and should not be cited except when relevant under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. Andrew HENGEL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. LANE COUNTY, OREGON, a Political subdivision of the State of Oregon, Defendant-Appellee. No. 92-36851. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted Sept. 2, 1993. Decided Oct. 15, 1993. Before: BROWNING, SCHROEDER, and HALL, Circuit Judges. 1 MEMORANDUM * 2 Andrew Hengel appeals the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Lane County in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action. Hengel contends that he was denied due process and that his First Amendment rights were infringed when Lane County terminated him as deputy sheriff. We affirm. I. 3 Hengel's substantive due process claim rests primarily on the contention that he received a harsher punishment than did other similarly situated employees. To survive summary judgement, a plaintiff must show there is a genuine issue of material fact. Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). There must be sufficient "evidence on which…