The Honorable David D. Noce, United States Magistrate Judge 1

for the Eastern District of Missouri, to whom the case was referred

by consent of the parties pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c).

___________

No. 95-2409

___________

Dianna Disesa, *

*

Appellant, *

*

v. * Appeal from the United States

* District Court for the

St. Louis Community College; * Eastern District of Missouri.

Betty Duvall, Individually and *

in capacity as Dean of *

Instruction; Francis R. Dennis, *

Individually and in capacity *

as Chairperson of Nursing *

Department; Thelma Vasques, *

Individually and in capacity as *

Nursing Instructor, *

*

Appellees. *

___________

 Submitted: January 11, 1996

 Filed: March 14, 1996

___________

Before WOLLMAN, ROSS, and MURPHY, Circuit Judges.

___________

WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge.

Dianna Disesa appeals from the magistrate judge's grant of summary 1

judgment in her 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claim against St. Louis Community College

at Florissant (the "College") and five college officials, alleging

violations of her substantive and procedural due process rights regarding

a failed nursing school course. We affirm.
-2-

I.

Disesa alleges that during her final semester as a nursing student

at the College she was informed that she had failed the classroom portion

of a multi-part class entitled "Nursing of Adults and Children III," taught

by defendants Thelma Vasquez, Dorothy Bowen and Joan Burns. Following the

receipt of this failing grade and the final decision not to allow Disesa

to retake the failed exam, Disesa was required to repeat the entire

semester course, thus postponing her graduation by one semester.

The course grade was calculated on the basis of five quizzes, which

accounted for seventy-five percent of the grade, and a final examination,

which accounted for the remaining twenty-five percent. Following the first

few quizzes, several students complained of administrative deficiencies in

the testing procedures, including typographical errors in the materials and

test questions, testing on materials not covered in class, and an inability

to review the quizzes after they were graded. The nursing department

responded to these complaints by issuing a formal announcement regarding

more rigorous faculty proofreading requirements and by allowing the

students to retake the third quiz.

Following the final exam, Disesa received a call from Francis Dennis,

the chair of the nursing department, who informed Disesa that she had

failed the classroom portion of the course and thus would not be allowed

to graduate on schedule. In a class of forty-six students, Disesa was one

of seven who failed. The failing students met with Dean Dennis to discuss

the possibility of retaking the test. After a series of faculty meetings

to discuss the situation, the request was denied. The decision was

appealed to the Dean of Instruction, Betty Duvall, who also denied the

students' request to retake the test. 
 The Honorable Edward L. Filippine, United States District

2

Judge for the Eastern District of Missouri.

-3-

The students referred their complaint to the Missouri Board of

Nursing, and an investigation followed. On December 20, 1989, the Board

issued a list of recommendations to be implemented by the college nursing

program and requested a response. After receiving no response, the Board

issued a citation to the College for deficiencies in meeting the minimum

standards of accreditation. Subsequently, Dean Dennis responded with a

compliance proposal that satisfied the Board and resolved the inquiry.

In response to the students' complaints, the College offered the

failed course the following fall so that the students would not have to

wait for its usual spring offering. Disesa retook the class in the fall

semester and passed. She then passed the state licensing exam. 

On May 23, 1991, Disesa filed a section 1983 action against the

College, Vasquez, Bowen, Burns, Dennis, and Duvall. Disesa's complaint

alleged numerous substantive and procedural due process violations related

to the teaching of the failed course, Disesa's failing grade, and the

administration's resolution of her complaints. In response to defendants'

motion to dismiss for failure to state a cause of action, the district

court dismissed without prejudice all but four of Disesa's claims, an

2

action from which Disesa does not appeal. The claims remaining were: 1)

a procedural due process claim that defendants Dennis and Duvall failed to

follow grievance procedures established by the College Handbook for

resolving disputes regarding grading decisions; 2) a substantive due

process claim against Vasquez, Burns, and Bowen concerning the alleged

arbitrary and capricious administration of classroom prerequisites

regarding individual students' attendance and work load; 3) a substantive

due process claim that curricula requirements were waived on an arbitrary

and capricious basis for
-4-

students similarly situated to Disesa; and 4) a substantive due process

claim that defendants Dennis and Duvall's response to Disesa's complaints

was motivated by ill will or bad faith.

For resolution of these remaining issues, the parties consented to

the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge, who granted summary judgment on

each claim.

II.

We review de novo a grant of summary judgment, applying the same

standard as the district court. Billingsley v. St. Louis County, 70 F.3d

61, 62 (8th Cir. 1995). We will affirm the district court's decision if

we find no genuine issue of material fact and that the moving party is

entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.

We first address Disesa's procedural due process claim alleging that

in reviewing Disesa's complaints Dennis and Duvall failed to comply with

procedures dictated by the College Student Rights and Responsibilities

Handbook that was in effect during the Spring 1989 semester. The core of

this claim is that an adequate forum was never provided for review of

alleged course deficiencies that may have influenced the failing grade.

Disesa points to the Handbook section entitled "violation of student

rights," which provides for a hearing committee to review student

grievances, and argues that she should have received such a hearing. This

section, however, exempts from this process "purely academic matters,"

which are to be "handled through normal academic channels, ending with the

decision of the dean of instruction."

If Disesa's grade complaint was properly classified as a purely

academic matter, then it was appropriately handled through normal academic

channels, ending with the final decision of the Dean of Instruction as

required by the handbook. Disesa argues,
-5-

however, that her complaint concerned personnel problems that were not

purely academic. She alleges that her grade was not entirely based on

academic merit but was influenced by numerous administrative problems in

the course. For example, Disesa points to the alleged arbitrary

implementation of a class policy prohibiting eraser marks without approval.

Disesa alleges that she was not permitted to change an answer on her final

exam, while other students were permitted to do so. Although this and

other alleged discrepancies may have affected Disesa's grade, we reject

this attempt to bootstrap already-dismissed claims pertaining to the faulty

administration of the class onto a remaining claim. These alleged

procedural irregularities do not rise to a level sufficient to transport

the grade outside the realm of academic decision. Indeed, as the Supreme

Court noted in Board of Curators v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 90 (1978),

grading decisions require "an expert evaluation of cumulative information

and [are] not readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial or

administrative decisionmaking." Such determinations partake of the essence

of purely academic decisions.

Moreover, even if Disesa could show a factual dispute regarding

whether the College failed to follow its own grievance procedures, she was

granted procedural protection beyond that required by the Fourteenth

Amendment. See Schuler v. University of Minnesota, 788 F.2d 510, 515 (8th

Cir. 1986) (holding that factual issue of University's compliance with

internally prescribed procedural rules need not be resolved upon a finding

that plaintiff received constitutionally adequate process), cert. denied,

479 U.S. 1056 (1987). Disesa took five quizzes that made up seventy-five

percent of her grade. The notice of her deficient performance that these

quizzes provided her, combined with the review of her grade by several

administrators, more than satisfied any procedural due process rights that

she may have had.
-6-

We next address Disesa's substantive due process claims. We have

held that a student handbook setting forth a grievance procedure to contest

an allegedly capricious or improper grade can establish a property interest

in non-arbitrary grading. Ikpeazu v. University of Nebraska, 775 F.2d 250,

253 (8th Cir. 1985) (per curiam). We will assume for purposes of analysis

that the handbook created such an interest in this case. To establish a

substantive due process claim, Disesa must show that there was no rational

basis for the College's decision or that the decision was motivated by bad

faith or ill will. Id. (citations omitted). 

The first substantive due process claim against Vasquez, Burns, and

Bowen alleges that their administration of classroom prerequisites was

arbitrary and capricious. Specifically, this claim points to the

instructors' handling of the clinical portion of the class, asserting that

some students were allowed to make up absences while others were not.

Disesa admits, however, that she was not required to make up the one day

of clinical that she missed. Because this alleged arbitrary policy was not

applied to Disesa's detriment because she passed the clinical portion of

the course, this claim lacks merit.

Disesa alleges that the defendants waived curricula requirements on

an arbitrary and capricious basis. To support this claim, Disesa argues

that two other nursing students, Andrea Garafalo and Linda Park, failed a

course entitled Anatomy and Physiology II and were allowed a retest while

Disesa was denied the opportunity to retake her failed exam. The course

failed by Garafalo and Park, however, was taught by the biology department,

not by the nursing school. Disesa does not allege that a nursing student

was ever allowed to retake a final exam in a course offered by the nursing

school. Because Disesa has failed to show arbitrary or capricious action

with regard to the decision to deny her request to retest, this claim must

fail.

 
-7-

Disesa alleges that Dennis and Duvall's review of her complaints and

ultimate decision to uphold the grade were motivated by bad faith or ill

will. Disesa argues that the decision to treat her complaint as an

academic issue improperly precluded a substantive review of the teaching

methods of the course. Disesa appears to argue that a review of the grade

is meaningless without a review of the factors that comprised the grade

decision. We find no evidence of bad faith or ill will in Dennis and

Duvall's actions. The record shows that Dennis and Duvall engaged in a

good faith effort to correct the teaching deficiencies by enacting stricter

proof-reading requirements and by allowing the retaking of one quiz.

Moreover, they offered the course in the fall so that Disesa would not have

to wait until spring to graduate. These actions admit of no finding of ill

will or bad faith toward Disesa.

The judgment is affirmed.

A true copy.

Attest:

CLERK, U. S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT.