that Plaintiff is not subject to merit system protection under Ala.Code § 45-4-120 or otherwise that he did not, therefore, have a property interest in his job. Nonetheless, no published decision of an Alabama state or federal court appears to have interpreted that statute or otherwise addressed the rights of a deputy sheriff from Bibb County as they relate to due process or continued employment more generally. Further, the Alabama Supreme Court has recently noted some potential uncertainty as it relates to whether deputy sheriffs are subject to civil service protections afforded county employees. See Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge No. 64 v. Personnel Bd. of Jefferson County, 103 So.3d 17, 20 n. 3 (Ala.2012); cf. Etowah County Com’n v. Grant, 10 So.3d 1009, 1012-13 (Ala.Civ.App.2007) (<HOLDING>). As a result, the legal basis of Plaintiffs
holding that a denial of entitlement to service connection is a factual determination that we may not review holding that deputy sheriffs were in the service of the county rather than in the service of the state for purposes of determining their entitlement to overtime compensation under alacode  36214 or  41 distinguishing whitten and mack supra holding that an attempted service on the partys counsel was insufficient without proof of the counsels actual authority to receive service holding that service is not avoided by service on a partys attorney as service on an attorney is ineffective unless he has been authorized to accept such service holding that service of a statecourt summons and complaint after removal to federal court is valid service