A federal appeals court panel has upheld a U.S. magistrate’s decision to dismiss a lawsuit against the city of Waco filed by a veteran Waco police officer who claims he was retaliated against and his life endangered for his outspoken views on race and community relations.

A three-judge panel of the 5th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on Monday affirmed a January 2023 order by U.S. Magistrate Jeffrey C. Manske, of Waco, that granted a motion from the city of Waco and former Police Chief Ryan Holt to dismiss the civil rights lawsuit filed by 25-year officer Stan Mason.

Mason’s lawsuit alleged his rights to free speech, due process and equal protection under the law were violated by the actions of his fellow officers and supervisors.

Mason also alleged that his life was placed in jeopardy by officers who failed to timely respond to requests for back-up and by an officer who failed to inform him that his life had been threatened by a mental health patient.

Waco City Attorney Jennifer Richie said the city agrees with the court’s decision and “remains committed to an inclusive police department that respects the community while protecting it.”

Mason’s attorney, Michael B. Roberts, said Mason is disappointed in the decision, but said the “news has not dampened his positive spirit, nor his exemplary public law enforcement career.”

Mason, who retired from the Waco Police Department in 2019, currently is an assistant chief investigator in the evidence unit of the Fulton County, Georgia, District Attorney’s Office. He alleged that he effectively was forced to resign from the department because of how he was treated.

“I believe Stan was unfairly treated within the Waco Police Department, and his departure was based upon an intolerable work environment that threatened his safety and peace, in my opinion,” Roberts said. “He had no problems until he exercised his free speech rights through his broadcasts entitled ‘Behind the Blue Curtain.’ Yet, I conceded to the 5th Circuit, my work was not faultless.”

The panel notes in its eight-page opinion that Roberts acknowledged failing “to make adequate references to a lengthy appendix” and also admitted that “shortcoming and frailty here is … a failure to adequately identify (evidence).”

“It was not the magistrate judge’s duty to sift through the records in search of evidence to support (Mason’s) opposition to summary judgment,” the opinion states. “We therefore cannot agree with Mason’s argument that the magistrate judge’s alleged failure to do so constitutes error.”

The opinion also said that Mason’s appeal brief failed to address the alleged equal protection and due process claims, “so he waived those claims,” leaving only Mason’s First Amendment retaliation claim to consider.”We conclude that no reasonable jury could have found that Mason’s First Amendment rights were violated, based on the facts as references by both parties in their summary judgment briefing before the magistrate judge. As such, his claims against both defendants fail,” according to the opinion.

Roberts said Tuesday he has “personal responsibility for certain shortcomings in legal documents provided the trial court.”

“In spite of my best efforts, there was a failure to cite certain facts,” Roberts said. “That is not to suggest that those facts do not exist. Legitimate fact issues arose through numerous depositions. The federal rules afford the court’s discretion to allow repleading other than dismissal. Those arguments were made to the 5th Circuit to no avail. Stan and I know there is even higher authority, and we live to fight another day.”

Mason complained that the department initiated three “inquiries” into his conduct, including one complaining of comments made on his blog. The department investigated the complaints and determined that they were unfounded and that Mason had done nothing wrong, the opinion states.

“Mason was not sanctioned or disciplined as a result. In total, Mason complains of three ‘inquiries’ conducted by the department into his conduct, but there is no evidence that any of them led to any findings of wrongdoing or sanctions against Mason,” the panel wrote.

Holt initiated an investigation into Mason’s complaint that an officer failed to timely report a threat on Mason’s life. The probe led to the officer being sanctioned and to his apology for “forgetting to report the threat,” the opinion says.

Mason’s lawsuit says he had an “exemplary record” in his long career with the department, was instrumental in helping establish Waco community policing initiatives and was well-known for fostering goodwill between the community and the police department.