United States Court of Appeals

For the Eighth Circuit

___________________________

No. 15-2972

___________________________

LaTanya Thomas, Special Administrator of the Estate of Tyler Thomas

lllllllllllllllllllll Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

Board of Trustees of the Nebraska State Colleges

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant - Appellee

Joshua Keadle

lllllllllllllllllllll Defendant

____________

Appeal from United States District Court 

for the District of Nebraska - Omaha

____________

 Submitted: June 16, 2016

 Filed: July 1, 2016

[Unpublished]

____________

Before MURPHY, BRIGHT, and SHEPHERD, Circuit Judges.

____________

PER CURIAM.
LaTanya Thomas(“Thomas”), the Special Administrator of the Estate of Tyler

Thomas (“Tyler”), appeals the district court’s adverse grant of summary judgment

1

on her Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681 et. seq., claim against the Board of Trustees of the

Nebraska State Colleges(“the Board”). She assertsthat the Board showed deliberate

indifference to the substantial risk of harm Joshua Keadle posed to female students

on the Peru State College (“Peru State”) campus, resulting in Tyler’s abduction,

sexual assault, and murder by Keadle. We have jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291

and affirm.

We view the facts in the light most favorable to the nonmovant, Thomas. See

Roe v. St. Louis Univ., 746 F.3d 874, 877-878 (8th Cir. 2014). In the fall of 2010,

19-year-old Tyler was a female freshman at Peru State and lived in an on-campus

dormitory, next door to Joshua Keadle, then 29 years old. Keadle arrived at Peru

State in the fall of 2010. Upon his arrival, he volunteered as a strength and

conditioning assistant for Peru State’s women’s basketball team. A background

check, required for Keadle to continue in the assistant position, revealed only minor

traffic offenses. Around that time, Keadle came under suspicion for the theft of a

laptop, and Director of Housing and Security William Stonebarger received an email

indicating that Keadle had been convicted of a robbery, accused of other robberies,

and had “a forcible fondling (RAPE) on a 18yr old female charge on record, but the

charges were droped [sic].” Stonebarger persuaded another Peru State professional

to run a second background check; in addition to the minor traffic offenses, it

revealed a misdemeanor theft conviction. The Peru State Athletic Director contacted

the athletic director of a college that Keadle had previously attended for a reference,

and that athletic directorrecommended that Peru State’s women’s basketball teamnot

hire Keadle. The Peru State Athletic Director decided not to hire Keadle and

The Honorable John M. Gerrard, United States District Judge for the District 1

of Nebraska.

-2-
instructed the women’s basketball coach that Keadle was not to have any contact with

the women’s basketball team. 

During September 2010, two students complained that Keadle sexually

harassed them, and on-campus disciplinary proceedings against Keadle were

instituted by Peru State’s Crisis Assessment, Response, and Evaluation team. The

first complaint involved continuous sexually inappropriate comments and one

occasion on which Keadle waited for the student to finish her work shift and then

asked her for a kiss once alone with her. Stonebarger recommended to the Vice

President for Enrollment Management that Keadle be removed from the dormitories

if he pled responsible, but she disagreed. Keadle pled responsible and was instead

sanctioned with online education activities and 10 hours of community service,

neither of which he completed. A hearing was held on the second complaint, which

alleged continuous comments and a deceptive Facebook communication. At the

hearing, the complaining student stated that Keadle had made her feel uncomfortable

but not threatened and apologized to Keadle. She later made a statement to Thomas’s

counsel that she was afraid of Keadle and had felt ambushed and intimidated during

the hearing. At the time, Keadle was failing his classes and later in the semester he

kicked down his dormitory room door. 

On December 3, 2010, around 1:00 a.m., Tyler was recorded on security

camera walking around campus alone. After that morning, she was never seen again. 

Keadle was questioned by the police and eventually admitted to being alone with

Tyler near the Missouri River in the early morning of December 3, but invoked his

privilege against self-incrimination and has since refused to be deposed. Available

evidence indicates that Keadle was the last person to see Tyler alive. Tyler’s body

has never been recovered, and she has been declared dead by a Nebraska state court.

Thomasfiled a complaint in the district court against the Board, which governs

Peru State, under Title IX, 20 U.S.C. § 1681, et. seq. Thomas alleged that the Board

-3-
was deliberately indifferent to the substantial risk of harm posed by Keadle, in

violation of Title IX, resulting in Tyler’s abduction, rape, and murder. The district

court granted summary judgment to the Board and dismissed the claim. Thomas

appealed.

The district court found that, viewing the facts in the light most favorable to

Thomas, no genuine issue of material fact existed as to whether the Board had actual

knowledge that Keadle posed a substantial risk ofsufficiently severe harmto students

based on his previous known conduct, or whether the Board acted with deliberate

indifference, both of which are required for a plaintiff to succeed in a Title IX claim

based on a student’s actions against the plaintiff. Upon careful de novo review, see

Roe, 746 F.3d at 881, we agree. See Gebser v. Lago Vista Indep. Sch. Dist., 524 U.S.

274, 291 (1998) (finding a single complaint of a teacher making inappropriate

comments insufficient to create actual knowledge of a sexual relationship between

the teacher and a student); Shrum ex rel. Kelly v. Kluck, 249 F.3d 773, 780, 782 (8th

Cir. 2001) (finding knowledge of rumors of inappropriate conduct, where the police

and school investigations on the matter were inconclusive, insufficient to establish

actual knowledge); Escue v. N. Okla. Coll., 450 F.3d 1146, 1154 (10th Cir. 2006)

(indicating that knowledge of less severe past misconduct is unlikely to establish

knowledge that the party poses a substantial risk of abuse (internal quotations

omitted)); Roe, 746 F.3d at 882 (finding that an institution “must merely respond to

known peer harassment in a manner that is not clearly unreasonable.” (quoting Davis

ex rel. LaShonda D. v. Monroe Cnty. Bd. of Educ., 526 U.S. 629, 649 (1999))). 

After careful review, we affirm the district court’s detailed and thoughtful

analysis and decision. See 8th Cir. R. 47B.

______________________________

-4-