Curtis

MEMORANDUM **

Kevin S. Curtis appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendants City of Redmond, Oregon, and Michael Patterson in his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and breach of contract suit. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 and we affirm.

I. Curtis’ Claims Against Patterson

A. Curtis’ Property Interest Claim under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment

Procedural due process protections extend only to those property interests created by an “independent source, such as state law.” Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972); Lawson v. Umatilla County, 139 F.3d 690 (9th Cir.1998). Under Oregon law, a property right to continued employment can be created by a statute or regulation giving a public employee tenure rights, see Brady v. Gebbie, 859 F.2d 1543, 1549 (9th Cir.1988) (quoting Papadopoulos v. Or. St. Bd. of Higher Ed., 14 Or.App. 130 , 511 P.2d 854, 872 (1973)), or by personnel policies adopted by a city official, see Brunick v. Clatsop County, 204 Or. App. 326 , 129 P.3d 738, 742 (2006). Curtis does not point to any statute or regulation that granted him tenure in his employment with the City of Redmond.…