fail. Moreover, since McBride’s employment was at will, his claim for breach of contract also must fail. Accordingly, the court grants summary judgment as to Counts I (property deprivation claim) and IV of the complaint. 2. Liberty Deprivation Claim McBride claims that the circumstances under which the Authority terminated him imposed a stigma sufficient to deprive him of liberty interests. See Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 92 S.Ct. 2701, 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). Specifically, McBride complains of the public statement the Board issued upon his termination: The Board appreciates the contributions of Mr. McBride and takes this action with regret. The decision is in the best interests of the Authority, the people it serves, and the citizens of Roanoke, and is based on an unsatisfac 4 (4th Cir.1981) (<HOLDING>). The court finds that the public statements at
holding that the scope of a government employees first amendment rights depends on the balance between the interests of the employee as a citizen in commenting upon matters of public concern and the interest of the state as an employer in promoting the efficiency of the public services it performs through its employees recognizing the public interest exception holding that the public interest factor was not implicated in a noncompete case because the specific action at issue would not help or harm the public and the public interest factor is generally considered within the confines of disputes involving governmental agencies or programs rather than in the adjudication of private controversies holding that no liberty interest was implicated where the public reason for employees dismissal was that their services did not meet the expectations of the public employer recognizing that public utilities affect the public interest in that they render essential public services to a large number of the general public