Richard HANSON, Appellant, v. Kurt KNICKERHAM, Director of DHS; Ruth Whitney, Director, Division of County Operations, DHS; State of Arkansas, Appellees, 24 F. App'x 649

[UNPUBLISHED] PER CURIAM. Richard Hanson filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Title VII complaint claiming sexual harassment, retaliation, and deprivation of due process by his former employer, the Arkansas Department of Human Services (Department). After a two-day trial, a jury found for the Department on Hanson’s harassment and retaliation claims, and the district court found for the Department on the due process claim. Hanson appeals with respect to his harassment and due process claims. After careful review of the record, we affirm.

Based on the evidence at trial, the jury could have concluded that the conduct described by Hanson did not rise to the level of sexual harassment. See Moring v. Arkansas Dep’t of Corr., 243 F.3d 452, 456 (8th Cir.2001). Further, the district court properly held that Hanson did not have a protected property interest. See Batra v. Board of Regents, 79 F.3d 717, 720 (8th Cir.1996); Rochester Methodist Hosp. v. Travelers Ins. Co., 728 F.2d 1006, 1010 (8th Cir.1984). Accordingly, we affirm. . The HONORABLE HARRY F. BARNES, United States District Judge for the Western District of Arkansas.