MEMORANDUM **
James Braddock appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(c). Braddock argues that Clark County violated his procedural and substantive due process rights when it reprimanded him without holding a hearing and suspended him for one day after an allegedly biased and procedurally deficient hearing. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We review the district court’s grant of summary judgment de novo. 1 For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
1. Braddock’s procedural due process claims.
A. The written reprimand did not implicate Braddock’s liberty or property interests.
Because Braddock has not established that the county deprived him of a protected liberty or property interest, the county is entitled to summary judgment on this issue. The county did not terminate Braddock and did not alter his rights or status as an employee when it reprimanded him.2 Thus, Braddock has failed to *805show that the county deprived him of a protected liberty interest.3
The procedures in Braddock’s union’s collective bargaining agreement with the county do not significantly constrain his employer’s discretion in the decision-making process; thus, they are merely “safeguards that should apply” when an employer issues a written reprimand.4 Consequently, Braddock’s employer’s failure to follow them did not implicate a protected property interest.
B. The county’s pre- and post-suspension procedures did not violate Braddock’s procedural due process rights.
Because the county’s pre- and post-suspension procedures afforded Braddock notice and a meaningful opportunity to challenge his suspension, the county is entitled to summary judgment on Braddock’s remaining procedural due process claims.5
Braddock has failed to show that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding the alleged bias of his supervisor. Even if he had made the requisite showing, another supervisor independently verified the information underlying the charge against Braddock prior to suspending him. Braddock also does not explain how the destruction of his inspection reports deprived him of the opportunity to defend himself. Thus, with respect to this issue, summary judgment is justified.
II. Substantive due process claim.
Braddock argues that the county’s allegedly flawed application of its disciplinary procedures violated his substantive due process rights. Braddock does not allege conduct serious enough to state a claim under substantive due process.6 *806Thus, the county is entitled to summary judgment on this claim.
AFFIRMED.