BUCK RYAN v. DAVID A. BLACKWELL, JOSEPH REED, DEREK LANE, and MIKE FARRELL, in their individual capacities - Articles

All Content

BUCK RYAN v. DAVID A. BLACKWELL, JOSEPH REED, DEREK LANE, and MIKE FARRELL, in their individual capacities

Posted by: Tanja Trezise on Nov 3, 2020

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Robert L. Abell, ROBERT ABELL LAW, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Bryan H. Beauman, STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Robert L. Abell, ROBERT ABELL LAW, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellant.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Bryan H. Beauman, Jessica R. Stigall, Donald C. Morgan, STURGILL, TURNER, BARKER & MOLONEY, PLLC, Lexington, Kentucky, William E. Thro, UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY, Lexington, Kentucky, for Appellees.

Judge(s): SUHRHEINRICH, LARSEN, and READLER, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. Buck Ryan is a professor of journalism at the University of Kentucky. Following an audit, the University accused him of misusing department resources to make a larger profit off a textbook he had authored. He was asked to resign from his position as a tenured professor, but he refused to do so. Ryan brought suit against Defendants David Blackwell, Joseph Reed, Derek Lane, and Mike Farrell, alleging, amongst other things, that they retaliated against him for asserting his due process and First Amendment rights after he refused to resign. The district court dismissed Ryan’s claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). On appeal, Ryan alleges that the district court misconstrued his complaint, that he plausibly alleged due process retaliation, and that his speech was on a matter of public concern. He argues that he did, therefore, meet the Rule 12(b)(6) requirements to plausibly state a claim Blackwell, Reed, Lane, and Farrell argue that even if they did violate Ryan’s rights, they are entitled to qualified immunity. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM.

Attachments: