Benzie v. Western Michigan University

Sixth Circuit

Benzie v. Western Michigan University

52 F. App'x 822

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedDecember 26, 2002

DocketNo. 01-2710

StatusPublished

This text of 52 F. App'x 822 (Benzie v. Western Michigan University) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Benzie v. Western Michigan University, 52 F. App'x 822 (6th Cir. 2002).

Pincite

Opinion

ORDER

Pro se Michigan resident Vicky Benzie appeals a district court order that dismissed her civil suit. The case has been referred to this panel pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

The judgment Benzie appeals was entered in conformity with this court’s mandate in Benzie v. W. Mich. Univ., No. 98-1727, 2001 WL 1135998, 19 Fed.Appx. 360 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 2001) (unpublished).

In our prior opinion, we concluded that Benzie’s suit was barred by the Eleventh Amendment in the light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Board of Tr. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). Because the immunity question, the sole germane issue in this appeal, has been decided in her disfavor, the law-of-the-case doctrine proscribes revisiting it. This doctrine dictates that issues, once decided, .should be reopened only in extraordinary circumstances. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988). None is before us.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ORDER

Pro se Michigan resident Vicky Benzie appeals a district court order that dismissed her civil suit. The case has been referred to this panel pursuant to Rule 34(j)(l), Rules of the Sixth Circuit. We unanimously agree that oral argument is not needed. Fed. R.App. P. 34(a).

The judgment Benzie appeals was entered in conformity with this court’s mandate in Benzie v. W. Mich. Univ., No. 98-1727, 2001 WL 1135998, 19 Fed.Appx. 360 (6th Cir. Sept. 21, 2001) (unpublished).

In our prior opinion, we concluded that Benzie’s suit was barred by the Eleventh Amendment in the light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in Board of Tr. of Univ. of Ala. v. Garrett, 531 U.S. 356, 121 S.Ct. 955, 148 L.Ed.2d 866 (2001). Because the immunity question, the sole germane issue in this appeal, has been decided in her disfavor, the law-of-the-case doctrine proscribes revisiting it. This doctrine dictates that issues, once decided, .should be reopened only in extraordinary circumstances. Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 817, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988). None is before us.

Accordingly, the district court’s judgment is affirmed. Rule 34(j)(2)(C), Rules of the Sixth Circuit.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

52 F. App'x 822, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/benzie-v-western-michigan-university-ca6-2002.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack