have somehow defamed him, and that this defamation combined with the removal of his administrative powers constituted a deprivation of a liberty interest without due process of law. This claim suffers from two fatal flaws. First, plaintiff has failed to point to any defamatory comments by defendants or to even allege that the actions of defendants were somehow based on a belief by defendants that plaintiff is guilty of some type of wrongdoing. While plaintiff has alleged that the' removal of his powers caused him “to suffer ... loss of reputation in the community and great emotional and mental distress and embarrassment,” the mere removal of his powers without any negative comments by defendants does not rise to the level of defamation. See Roth, 408 U.S. at 573-74, 92 S.Ct. at 2707-08 (<HOLDING>). And second, defamation alone is insufficient
holding that defamation standing alone is not sufficient to establish a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest citations omitted holding that merely declining to rehire a person did not constitute defamation for deprivation of liberty interest purposes absent any charges against the good name or reputation of that person holding doma was unconstitutional as a deprivation of liberty of the person protected by the fifth amendment holding that members of the city council in their official capacity are not immune from a section 1983 suit against the municipality for deprivation of liberty interest in reputation without due process holding that police officers have a qualified privilege against defamation claims for reporting the fact that a person was arrested and the charges for which the person is being held