¶1*657John M. Turner, II, Atlanta, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant.
¶2Thomas L. Murphy, Paul Webb, Jr., Atlanta, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
¶3Before BROWN, Chief Judge, and AINSWORTH, Circuit Judges, and CAMPBELL,* District Judge.
¶6Willie Webb, who was employed as a probation officer with the Juvenile Court of Fulton County, Georgia, was dismissed after a period of probation and a subsequent suspension without pay. He appealed his dismissal to the Personnel Board of Fulton County, which, after a full-blown hearing, upheld the termination. Webb then sought relief in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia,1 claiming that the circumstances surrounding his dismissal deprived him of procedural due process. The District Court granted defendants’ motion for summary judgment, and we affirm.
¶7We first uphold the District Court’s finding that, under the holdings of Board of Regents v. Roth2 3and Perry v. Sindermann,3Ga.Code Ann. § 24A-6034 and Section 18 of the Fulton County Civil Service Act5 gave appellant at least a minimal property interest in his employment with the Fulton County Juvenile Court. The Georgia Supreme Court in Brownlee v. Williams, 233 Ga. 548, 212 S.E.2d 359 (1975), held that personnel covered by Section 18 have legitimate property interests in their jobs. And District Judge Henderson, a Georgia practitioner of long experience,6*658has determined that the joint operation of § 24A-603 and Section 18 grants court personnel like Webb a similar right. Appellant, therefore, was entitled to minimum due process protections.
¶8Examining the record, we have found that Webb’s supervisors informed him several times, both orally and in writing, that they were dissatisfied with his insubordinate attitude toward his immediate superior and with the quality of a report he was responsible for. He also had at least two conferences with superiors, prior to his termination, concerning the problems that led to his ultimate dismissal. At the time of his termination he was given written notice of the reasons therefor, and afterward he received a full-blown hearing, at which he subpoenaed, examined, and cross-examined witnesses on the issues involved in the decision to fire him.7 Aside from any question regarding compliance with the state statutes,8 we find that the procedures employed in terminating Webb comported with due process.
¶9AFFIRMED.