REVISED April 7, 2015

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-50942

Summary Calendar

SAURAV PATHRIA, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant

v.

PHILIP SERWER; STEPHEN C. HARDIES; SUSAN T. WEINTRAUB; 

LARRY D. BARNES, Associate Dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical 

Sciences; WILLIAM HALDENWANG; NEAL C. ROBINSON, Chairman of 

Committee on Graduate Studies, Department of Biochemistry; BRUCE J. 

NICHOLSON, Chairman of the Department of Biochemistry; DAVID S. 

WEISS, Dean of the Graduate School of Biomedical Sciences; MICHAEL 

GARGANO, Vice President for Academic, Faculty and Student Affairs; THE 

UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS HEALTH SCIENCE CENTER AT SAN ANTONIO, 

 Defendants - Appellees

Appeal from the United States District Court

for the Western District of Texas

USDC No. 5:14-CV-32

United States Court of Appeals

Fifth Circuit

FILED

April 3, 2015

Lyle W. Cayce

Clerk

 Case: 14-50942 Document: 00512996013 Page: 1 Date Filed: 04/07/2015
No. 14-50942

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, JONES, and HIGGINSON, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Appellant Saurav Pathria was terminated from a biochemistry PhD 

program at the University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio 

(“UTHSCSA”). In his second suit against the institutional defendant, he also 

named nine individual defendants and sued for violations of the 

14th Amendment, intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress, 

defamation and violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. 

§ 2000d. The district court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss based on 

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and (6), and Pathria has appealed. 

Finding no reversible error of law or fact, we affirm.

First, Pathria has failed adequately to brief most of his contentions, but 

has utterly failed in respect of the tort claims and alleged Title VI violation. 

Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28(a)(8)(A) and Fifth Circuit Local 

Rule 28.3(i) require an appellant to brief his contentions by offering legal 

citations and record citations. “A party who inadequately briefs an issue is 

considered to have abandoned the claim,” Friou v. Phillips Petroleum Co., 

948 F.2d 972, 974 (5th Cir. 1991), and this rule applies to pro se appellants. 

Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 225 (5th Cir. 1993). Pathria’s response to the 

court’s reasons for dismissing his tort claims against the defendants and his 

Title VI claim lack any supporting legal authority. Consequently, those issues 

are waived.

Second, Pathria cannot overcome the district court’s conclusions that his 

pleadings were insufficient to state a claim under the Fourteenth Amendment 

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not 

be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH 

CIR. R. 47.5.4.

2

 

 Case: 14-50942 Document: 00512996013 Page: 2 Date Filed: 04/07/2015
No. 14-50942

against the individual defendants. The stray remarks allegedly made by the 

defendants were isolated, remote in time from his removal and largely 

unconnected with the events leading to his dismissal from the PhD program 

for failure to propose a dissertation topic. Pathria waives his objection to this 

conclusion by failing to brief it on appeal. 

The only remark of potential significance in his brief is Vice President 

Gargano’s “Tandoori chicken” comment made when Pathria asked him to 

change the academic record to reflect that Pathria resigned rather than was 

terminated from the program. To allege intentional discrimination for claims 

under § 1983 for violation of equal protection, Pathria must allege sufficient 

facts to show that Gargano “singled out a particular group for disparate 

treatment and selected his course of action at least in part for the purpose of 

causing its adverse effect on an identifiable group.” Lavernia v. Lynaugh, 

845 F.2d 493, 496 (5th Cir. 1988) (internal quotation marks omitted). 

Assuming arguendo that Gargano’s comment was related to Pathria’s

race or national origin, this single instance, standing alone, is insufficient to 

plausibly suggest that Gargano’s decision to deny Pathria’s request was 

motivated by discriminatory intent, as required for 12(b)(6) purposes. See 

Jackson v. Cal-Western Packaging Corp., 602 F.3d 374, 380 (5th Cir. 2010) 

(noting that stray remarks are insufficient to establish discrimination absent 

evidence that the remarks were related to, or made proximate in time to, the 

adverse decision). Pathria’s pleadings establish, to the contrary, that the

decision to deny Pathria’s request was not Gargano’s alone. It was the 

members of the graduate committee, including Gargano, who decided not to 

change Pathria’s dismissal into a resignation. Additionally, Pathria’s request 

came more than a year after he was dismissed in September 2012, which was 

six months after he had offered, but not carried through with, the process of 

3

 Case: 14-50942 Document: 00512996013 Page: 3 Date Filed: 04/07/2015
No. 14-50942

resigning from the program. The dismissal itself occurred after Pathria had 

received an additional six months of pay from UTHSCSA without performing 

services. In light of these facts, Gargano’s alleged discriminatory comment 

does not move Pathria’s claim of purposeful discrimination “across the line 

from conceivable to plausible.” Leal v. McHugh, 731 F.3d 405, 410 (5th Cir. 

2013) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 

Finally, although Pathria on appeal offers various vague assertions that 

non-Indian students were treated more favorably than he was while other 

Indian students were discriminated against, none of these assertions appeared 

in his district court pleadings and we must disregard them on appeal. 

Leverette v. Louisville Ladder Co., 183 F.3d 339, 342 (5th Cir. 1999). 

For these reasons, the district court’s judgment of dismissal is 

AFFIRMED.

4

 Case: 14-50942 Document: 00512996013 Page: 4 Date Filed: 04/07/2015