Maurin
Maurin v. Port of Seattle
Opinion
Lead Opinion
MEMORANDUM **
Mark P. Maurin appeals pro se the district court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action alleging that the Port of Seattle (the “Port”) violated his Fourth Amendment rights when it subjected him to random breathalyzer tests to determine his blood alcohol level. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , and, after de novo review, Balint v. Carson City, Nev., 180 F.3d 1047, 1050 (9th Cir.1999) (en banc), we affirm.
United States Department of Transportation (“DOT”) regulations require that all covered employers conduct random tests to determine the blood alcohol level of employees who either are or may be required to drive commercial motor vehicles. See 49 U.S.C. § 31306 (b); 49 C.F.R. § 382.305 (m); id. § 382.107 (defining “driver” and the “performing” of a “safety-sensitive function”).
Maurin does not contend that the DOT regulations mandating the random alcohol tests are facially unconstitutional, see, e.g., Nat’l Treasury Employees Union v. Von Raab, 489 U.S. 656, 677 , 109 S.Ct. 1384 , 103 L.Ed.2d 685 (1989), but rather that the tests were unconstitutionally administered to him. Mauriris contention lacks merit.