|
CYNTHIA LAMBERT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. GREG HARTMAN, in his official capacity as Clerk of Courts, and HAMILTON COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, Defendants-Appellees. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati.
No. 04-00837—Michael H. Watson, District Judge.
Argued: January 30, 2008
Decided and Filed: February 25, 2008
Before: GUY, GILMAN, and McKEAGUE, Circuit Judges.
RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Cynthia Lambert appeals the district court’s dismissal of her complaint against Greg Hartmann in his official capacity as the Hamilton County Clerk of Courts (the “Clerk”) and against the Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners (the “County”) (collectively the “Defendants”). In September of 2003, Lambert received a traffic citation for speeding. She later discovered that this citation, which contained personal identifying information (including her Social Security number), had been published on the Clerk’s public website.
Lambert sued the Defendants pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claiming that the publication of the citation violated her constitutional right to privacy under the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. She further asserted that her identity had been stolen by a third party as a direct result of the Clerk’s publication of the citation, and that she had consequently suffered economic damages, damage to her personal credit rating, and damage to her reputation. Lambert also raised state-law claims and sought to certify her complaint as a class action.
The Defendants moved to dismiss Lambert’s complaint on the basis that she had failed to state a claim under § 1983. Concluding that Lambert’s § 1983 claim must fail because her alleged privacy interest was not of a constitutional dimension, the district court granted the Defendants’ motion. The court then dismissed her pendent state-law claims without prejudice. Lambert argues that the court erred in dismissing her complaint and renews her claim that the Defendants violated her constitutional right to privacy. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.