Braddock

MEMORANDUM **

James Braddock appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). Braddock argues that Clark County violated his procedural and substantive due process rights when it reprimanded him without holding a hearing and suspended him for one day after an allegedly biased and procedurally deficient hearing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291 . We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. 1 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.

1. Braddock’s procedural due process claims.

A. The written reprimand did not implicate Braddock’s liberty or property interests.

Because Braddock has not established that the county deprived him of a protected liberty or property interest, the county is entitled to summary judgment on this issue. The county did not terminate Braddock and did not alter his rights or status as an employee when it reprimanded him. 2 Thus, Braddock has failed to *805 show that the county deprived him of a protected liberty interest.

The procedures in Braddock’s union’s collective bargaining agreement with the county do not significantly constrain his…