plaintiff points to the fact that all the paperwork in the Cook County State's Attorney's Office has the county and not the state seal in its letterhead.  Additionally, the release form plaintiff signed when hired as an Assistant State's Attorney stated that "this information is to be used to determine my placement for the position I am entering with Cook County."   Finally, "County Department of Personnel" is written on the first line of plaintiff's personnel inventory report.  The report continues to state that, "This Personnel Inventory Report assists the Department of Personnel in effectively ascertaining your proper placement in a position with Cook County."


24
While all of this may have convinced the plaintiff that he was indeed a county employee, unilateral expectations alone are notenough.  See Roth, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709.   At best, the plaintiff's evidence no more than raises a question as to whether Assistant State's Attorneys are county or state employees.  We find that under Illinois law as interpreted by the state and this circuit, the plaintiff has not met his burden to "clearly establish" that he was a Cook County employee protected by the Cook County Rules.  Therefore, he did not possess a "clearly established constitutional right" in continued employment with the State's Attorney's Office at the time of his dismissal on November 15, 1991.  Accordingly, defendants are entitled to qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1983.

Order

25
The District Court's denial of defendants' motion for summary judgment is reversed and