Namazi v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine

Sixth Circuit

Namazi v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine

3 F. App'x 482

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

DecidedFebruary 8, 2001

DocketNo. 99-4382

StatusPublished

This text of 3 F. App'x 482 (Namazi v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine) 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

Namazi v. University of Cincinnati College of Medicine, 3 F. App'x 482 (6th Cir. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

From the fall of 1990 until her dismissal in early 1996, Nushin Namazi was variously enrolled in and on leave from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Because we agree that her situation was handled professionally, dutifully, sensitively, and in conformity with established policies, we AFFIRM the District Court’s summary judgment of Namazi’s instant lawsuit against the school and five individual school officials.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Namazi’s complaint asserted violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, 20 U.S.C. § 1232h. Notwithstanding the significant additional contents of Namazi’s briefs to us, these are the only issues we may consider on appeal because they were the only issues contested in the District Court. See Bailey v. Floyd Co. Bd. of Educ., 106 F.3d 135, 143 (6th Cir.1997). Moreover, Namazi’s response to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on all three causes of action failed to address the latter two. Accordingly, this matter has been reduced to a Fourteenth Amendment case. See Wayne Co. Neighborhood Legal Servs. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 971 F.2d 1, 3 (6th Cir.1992).

Although Namazi’s filings are ambiguous as to whether she intends her generalized “Fourteenth Amendment” claim to rely upon the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause (and are further ambiguous as to whether a Due Process Clause argument would be one of substantive due process or procedural due process), we are persuaded that none of these theories are meritorious. See, e.g., Regents of the Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 223, 106 S.Ct. 507, 88 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985); Board of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 84-85, 98 S.Ct. 948, 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978). We empathize with Namazi’s personal hardships, and appreciate how difficult they made her attempt at medical [483]*483education, but the record documents that the defendants gave her every appropriate opportunity to succeed in her studies. Under these circumstances, Namazi has no legal redress.

Judgment AFFIRMED.

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

PER CURIAM.

From the fall of 1990 until her dismissal in early 1996, Nushin Namazi was variously enrolled in and on leave from the University of Cincinnati College of Medicine. Because we agree that her situation was handled professionally, dutifully, sensitively, and in conformity with established policies, we AFFIRM the District Court’s summary judgment of Namazi’s instant lawsuit against the school and five individual school officials.

Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Namazi’s complaint asserted violations of the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, the Federal Education Rights and Privacy Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1232g, and the Protection of Pupil Rights Amendment, 20 U.S.C. § 1232h. Notwithstanding the significant additional contents of Namazi’s briefs to us, these are the only issues we may consider on appeal because they were the only issues contested in the District Court. See Bailey v. Floyd Co. Bd. of Educ., 106 F.3d 135, 143 (6th Cir.1997). Moreover, Namazi’s response to the defendants’ motions for summary judgment on all three causes of action failed to address the latter two. Accordingly, this matter has been reduced to a Fourteenth Amendment case. See Wayne Co. Neighborhood Legal Servs. v. National Union Fire Ins. Co., 971 F.2d 1, 3 (6th Cir.1992).

Although Namazi’s filings are ambiguous as to whether she intends her generalized “Fourteenth Amendment” claim to rely upon the Equal Protection Clause or the Due Process Clause (and are further ambiguous as to whether a Due Process Clause argument would be one of substantive due process or procedural due process), we are persuaded that none of these theories are meritorious. See, e.g., Regents of the Univ. of Michigan v. Ewing, 474 U.S. 214, 223, 106 S.Ct. 507, 88 L.Ed.2d 523 (1985); Board of Curators of the Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 84-85, 98 S.Ct. 948, 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978). We empathize with Namazi’s personal hardships, and appreciate how difficult they made her attempt at medical [483]*483education, but the record documents that the defendants gave her every appropriate opportunity to succeed in her studies. Under these circumstances, Namazi has no legal redress.

Judgment AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

3 F. App'x 482, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/namazi-v-university-of-cincinnati-college-of-medicine-ca6-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack