Moore v. LA St Univ & Agri ( 2001 )

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-30375
Summary Calendar
VIOLA MOORE,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY
AND AGRICULTURAL AND
MECHANICAL COLLEGE; CARVILLE
EARLE; KENT MATHEWSON; WILLIAM
DAVIDSON; RICHARD KESSEL,
Defendants-Appellees.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Louisiana
(00-CV-125)
- - - - - - - - - -
November 2, 2001
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Plaintiff-Appellant Viola Moore appeals from the district
court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing her 42 U.S.C. § 1983
complaint against the individual Defendants-Appellees, who are
university professors. Moore claims that her substantive due
process rights were violated when the professors rejected her
thesis proposal which, she contends, resulted in her de facto
dismissal from the university’s Ph.D. program. She also claims
*
Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined
that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent
except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR.
R. 47.5.4.
that she was deprived of a liberty interest —— pursuing her chosen
course of study —— without due process of law.
Federal courts are not “suited to evaluate the substance of
the multitude of academic decisions that are made daily by faculty
members of public educational institutions -- decisions that
require ``an expert evaluation of cumulative information and [are]
not readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial or
administrative decision-making.’” Regents of Univ. of Michigan v.
Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 226 (1985) (citation omitted). “Courts must
accept, as consistent with due process, ‘an academic decision that
is not beyond the pale of reasoned academic decision-making when
viewed against the background of [the student’s] entire career at
the University.’” Wheeler v. Miller, 168 F.3d 241, 250 (5th Cir.
1999) (citation omitted).
Under this standard, Moore has failed to show that the
professors did not exercise professional judgment. On this record,
no rational trier of fact could find that the professors’ treatment
of Moore was beyond the pale of reasoned academic decision-making
in light of Moore’s entire academic career. Accordingly, the
judgment of the district court is
AFFIRMED.
2