PER CURIAM: Appellant Larry Andrist (“Andrist”) appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment against him and in favor of his employers and supervisors (“the defendants”) on Andrist’s claims that the defendants violated his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights. According to Andrist, the defendants retaliated against him for disclosing perceived fraud, waste, and abuse of public funds. This court reviews a “grant of
summary judgment de novo, drawing all [reasonable] inferences in favor of the non-moving party.” Fin. Sec. Assurance, Inc. v. Stephens, Inc., 450 F.3d 1257, 1269 (11th Cir.2006).
Summary judgment is appropriate when “there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and ... the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(c). After reviewing the record, reading the parties’ briefs, and having the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that there is no merit to any of the arguments that Andrist makes in this appeal. In fact, his claims are foreclosed by the Supreme Court’s decision in Garcetti v. Ceballos, 547 U.S.-, 126 S.Ct. 1951, 164 L.Ed.2d 689 (2006), and our recent precedents of Battle v. Bd. of Regents for Ga., 468 F.3d 755 (11th Cir.2006), and Vila v.
Padron, 484 F.3d 1334 (11th Cir.2007). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of the defendants. AFFIRMED.