party’s evidence must be more than “mere reargument of [his] case or a denial of an opponent’s allegation” or it will be disregarded). The Court therefore finds that Plaintiff has not met the second element by providing evidence which creates a genuine issue of material fact that the statements made were false. See Harper, 837 F.Supp.2d at 1223-24 (finding a genuine issue of material fact only where the plaintiff provided evidence on which a reasonable juror could conclude that the statements made were false). Mere assertions of false statements which impugn an individual’s reputation are insufficient, standing alone, to create a triable issue regarding a Fourteenth Amendment liberty interest claim. See Stidham v. Peace Officer Standards & Training, 265 F.3d 1144, 1153 (10th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Accordingly, the Court finds that entry of
holding that conduct actionable as state claim for defamation does not rise to level of liberty deprivation simply because government officials are involved holding that defamation standing alone is not sufficient to establish a claim for deprivation of a liberty interest citations omitted holding that a defamation claim is a personal injury tort claim 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 that defamation by a state official alone does not violate a liberty interest of a plaintiff absent the alteration or extinguishment of a right or status previously recognized by state law