Moberly v. University of Cincinnati Clermont College , 469 F. App'x 467 ( 2012 )

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 12a0477n.06
No. 10-4136
FILED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT May 07, 2012
LEONARD GREEN, Clerk
JASON MOBERLY, )
) ON APPEAL FROM THE
Plaintiff-Appellant, ) UNITED STATES DISTRICT
) COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN
v. ) DISTRICT OF OHIO
)
UNIVERSITY OF CINCINNATI CLERMONT ) OPINION
COLLEGE; ANN APPLETON, Individually; )
KIMBERLY ELLISON, Individually; JAMES )
MCDONOUGH, Individually, )
)
Defendants-Appellees. )
BEFORE: MERRITT and COLE, Circuit Judges; VARLAN, District Judge.*
PER CURIAM. Plaintiff-Appellant Jason Moberly appeals the district court’s grant of
summary judgment in favor of Defendants-Appellees University of Cincinnati Clermont College,
Assistant Dean of Students Ann Appleton, Director of Student Life Kimberly Ellison, and Dean
James McDonough (collectively, “Clermont”). Moberly alleges that Clermont initially declined to
hire him as assistant basketball coach in retaliation for raising complaints about racial discrimination,
in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981, the First Amendment, and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act, 42
U.S.C. § 2000d. Despite its initial decision to offer the position to another candidate, Clermont
ultimately hired Moberly.
*
The Honorable Thomas A. Varlan, United States District Judge for the Eastern District of
Tennessee, sitting by designation.
No. 10-4136
Moberly v. University of Cincinnati Clermont College, et al.
We review the grant of a motion for summary judgment de novo and “view all evidence in
the light most favorable to the non-moving party.” Upshaw v. Ford Motor Co., 576 F.3d 576, 584
(6th Cir. 2009). We may grant summary judgment if, upon review of the pleadings, affidavits,
depositions, and answers to interrogatories, we conclude “that there is no genuine dispute as to any
material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). Upon
hearing oral argument and carefully reviewing the record, we conclude that the district court did not
err in granting summary judgment in favor of Clermont on all claims. Accordingly, we AFFIRM
for the reasons set forth in the district court opinion.
2