Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03254/USCOURTS-ca8-03-03254-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 

---

1

The Honorable Ralph R. Erickson, United States District Judge for the District

of North Dakota, sitting by designation.

United States Court of Appeals

FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT

___________

No. 03-3254

___________

L. David Ormerod, M.D., *

*

Appellant, *

* Appeal from the United States

v. * District Court for the 

* Western District of Missouri.

Curators of the University of Missouri, *

Richard L. Wallace, * [UNPUBLISHED]

Jack M. Colwill, M.D., and *

John W. Cowden, M.D., *

*

Appellees. *

___________

Submitted: March 12, 2004

Filed: May 21, 2004

___________

Before RILEY and MELLOY, Circuit Judges, and ERICKSON,1

 District Judge.

___________

PER CURIAM.

Appellate Case: 03-3254 Page: 1 Date Filed: 05/21/2004 Entry ID: 1769642 
2

The Honorable Scott O. Wright, United States District Judge for the Western

District of Missouri. 

-2-

L. David Ormerod (Dr. Ormerod) appeals the dismissal of his civil rights

action. The district court2

 found that his claim was barred by the Eleventh

Amendment. We affirm. 

We review the grant of summary judgment de novo. Treleven v. Univ. of

Minn., 73 F.3d 816, 817 (8th Cir. 1996). We will affirm if the record shows that there

is no genuine issue of material fact and that the prevailing party is entitled to

judgment as a matter of law. Id. (quoting Maitland v. Univ. of Minn., 43 F.3d 357,

360 (8th Cir. 1994)).

The University of Missouri hired Dr. Ormerod in 1996 as an associate

professor of opthalmology. When the university terminated his employment, he

brought a section 1983 suit against the university, Richard Wallace, Jack Colwill, and

John Cowden. Wallace is the chancellor for the University of Missouri’s Columbia

campus, Colwill was the interim dean for the school of medicine, and Cowden chairs

the medical school’s department of opthalmology. Dr. Ormerod alleged that his due

process rights were violated when the university failed to review his grievances and

the university denied him consideration for tenure.

Defendants brought a motion for summary judgment arguing that the Eleventh

Amendment to the United States Constitution granted them immunity from this suit

seeking monetary damages. The district court noted that previous decisions had

established that the University of Missouri-Columbia was entitled to Eleventh

Amendment immunity. The court stated that it was unnecessary to evaluate whether

the university was still entitled to immunity because Dr. Ormerod had not shown any

change in the university’s circumstances. The court therefore granted the motion for

summary judgment as to the university.

Appellate Case: 03-3254 Page: 2 Date Filed: 05/21/2004 Entry ID: 1769642 
-3-

The court also granted summary judgment as to the defendants Wallace,

Colwill, and Cowden. The parties agreed that these three defendants were acting at

all relevant times as agents of the University of Missouri-Columbia. Dr. Ormerod did

not clearly specify in his complaint that he was suing them in their individual

capacities. Therefore, these defendants were also entitled to Eleventh Amendment

immunity.

For the reasons given in the district court’s opinion, we affirm. See 8th Cir. R.

47B.

______________________________

Appellate Case: 03-3254 Page: 3 Date Filed: 05/21/2004 Entry ID: 1769642