David Pilver v. Hillsborough County, 698 F. App'x 585

Plaintiff David Pilver, pro se, sued Hillsborough County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging defamation and denial of opportunity to clear his name (no viable state-law claims pursued on appeal).
Alleged defamatory statements came from his supervisor and a coworker in interviews, reports, and a written reprimand placed in his personnel file.
Pilver claimed employment consequences: a transfer from a 33-hour to a 40-hour workweek, a same-day suspension, and an official reprimand; he asserted loss of income and reputational injury.
The district court granted summary judgment for the County and dismissed other individual and state-law defendants/claims; Pilver abandoned appeals of those dismissals.
On appeal, the Eleventh Circuit reviewed de novo and considered whether Pilver stated a municipal liability claim or a due-process violation based on stigma-plus or denial of a name-clearing hearing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether County is liable under § 1983 for defamation	Pilver: County responsible for defamatory statements and personnel action harming reputation and employment	County: Defamation alone is not a constitutional violation; no municipal policy/custom caused deprivation	Affirmed — no municipal liability; defamation alone not a constitutional deprivation
Whether reputational injury plus employment action (stigma-plus) triggered due process	Pilver: Reprimand in personnel file and transfer/suspension constituted stigma-plus requiring a name-clearing hearing	County: Transfer and reprimand did not constitute a constitutionally protected loss of liberty or significant property interest	Affirmed — stigma-plus not established; reputational harm without more is insufficient
Whether denial of pre-deprivation or administrative hearing violated procedural due process	Pilver: Denied pre-deprivation hearing and administrative review to clear his name	County: No protected liberty or property interest implicated; no constitutional right to name-clearing here	Affirmed — no procedural due process violation
Whether County’s actions were attributable to an official policy/custom	Pilver: County should be held for actions of supervisor and coworkers	County: No allegation of policy or custom causing alleged violations	Affirmed — Pilver failed to plead municipal policy/custom

McDowell v. Brown, 392 F.3d 1283 (11th Cir. 2004) (summary judgment standard and municipal-liability discussion)
Siegert v. Gilley, 500 U.S. 226 (1991) (defamation alone is not a constitutional deprivation)
Paul v. Davis, 424 U.S. 693 (1976) (stigma-plus doctrine; reputational injury alone insufficient)
Von Stein v. Brescher, 904 F.2d 572 (11th Cir. 1990) (temporary loss of income from defamatory statements not a constitutional deprivation)
Oladeinde v. City of Birmingham, 963 F.2d 1481 (11th Cir. 1992) (injury to reputation alone is not a protected liberty interest)
Cannon v. City of W. Palm Beach, 250 F.3d 1299 (11th Cir. 2001) (stigma-plus requires more than reputational injury)
McKinney v. Pate, 20 F.3d 1550 (11th Cir. 1994) (substantive due process does not protect routine employment conditions absent fundamental rights)
Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833 (1998) (limits on imposing municipal liability for harms caused by state actors)
Los Angeles Cty. v. Humphries, 562 U.S. 29 (2010) (section 1983 municipal liability requires municipality’s own violation)