NO T R EC OM M EN DE D F OR F UL L- TEX T P UB LIC AT ION F ile Nam e: 08a0190n.06 F iled: April 9, 2008 No. 07-5585 UN ITED STA TES C OU RT OF AP P EA LS F OR THE SI XT H C IR CU IT
L UE EL L A R OG ERS , Pla int if f- Ap pe lla nt,
v. TENN ESSE E B OA RD OF REG EN TS, e t a l, De fe nd ants -A

pp e lle e s. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ON APPEALFROM THE U NI TED STATES DI STRI CT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DI STRI CT OF TEN NESSEE

Be for e : C OLE, G IBBO NS, and R OG ER S, C ir c uitJudg e s. ROGERS, Circ uit Jud ge . Plaintiff appea ls the district court’s g rant of summary judgme nt in t his 42 U. S.C. § 198 3 a c tio n. Pla int if f w a s d ism iss e d f

ro m th e nurs ingpr og ra

m at Wa lte rs State Communi ty

College afte r re ceivinga fa iling g rade in a clinical nursing course . Plaintiff appea led her g rade and dismiss al to the administration in acc ordanc e with the proce dures se t forth in a student h an d b o o k
. Af t er t h e a dm i n i s t ra t i o nd en i edt h e ap p ea l , p l ai n t i ff b ro u gh t t h e i n s t an tac t i o n , al l egi n g, among other t hings, a

violation of her pr ocedur al and substantive due proce ss rig hts under the Four teenth Amendme nt of the United Stat es C o n s tituti on. Be cause plaintiff was a ffor ded constitutionally

sufficie nt proce ss, and bec ause pla intiff’s intere st in her nursing ed u ca t i o n is not pr ote c te d b y

su bs tanti ve du e pr oc e ss, we a ff ir m.No. 07-5585

Ro ge rs v . Tn . B d. of R e

ge nts

- 2 - P l ai n t i ff Lu e E l l a R o ger s i s a f

o rm er nu rs i n g s tu d en tat W al t er s S t at e C o m m u n i t y C o l l ege (“WSCC ”), a Tenne ssee Boa rd of Reg ents colleg e. Roge rs enrolled in WSCC in the fa ll of 2001. Af te r s uc c e ssf

ull y c omp le tin g fo ur nurs ing c ours e s dur ing the F a ll 200 1 an d Spr ing 20 02 se me ste rs , Rog e rs fa ile d th e Nurs ing25 10 /25 11 c ours e se qu e nc e duri ng th e Fa ll 2 00 2 s e me ste r. B e c a us e WS CC’s acade mic p o l icy does not allow a student who f ailed a nur sing c ourse to prog ress to the next course, Rog ers f

ailed out of WSCC ’s nursing p ro gra m . I n April 2003, WS CC readmitted Roge rs and a llowed her

to retake t he Nur sing 2510/2511 c ourse se quence during the Fa ll 2003 semester
. Nursing 2511 is a

n introductory

clinical cour se. Rog ers’ clinical instructor f or the F all 2003 Nu rs ing 25 1 1 c o u r s e w a s R am o n a L o g an . T h e c l i n i c a l r o t a t i o n f o r t h e c o u r s e w a s s c h e d

u le d to beg in on Sept em b er 1 0 , 2003, and to conc lude on Novembe r 26, 2003, with a make -up session schedule d for De cembe r 10, 2003. On e ach c linical date, Rog ers wa s assig ned a pa tient to a t t end under the supervision of a prac ticing nurse, or “ prec eptor.” As part of the clinical e valuation, L og an was to eva luate Rog ers’ competenc e re g ardingvarious clinica l behaviors. A “Nur sing H andbook” set out behaviors a

nd skills to be learned by eac h student and provided an evaluation instrument for the instructor to asse ss a student’s per formanc e. The han db ook also containe d a set of guidelines fo r c omp le tin g stu de nt e va luatio ns . A t the e nd of the se me ste r, ins tr

uc tor s w e re to g ive stu de nts a fi na l e va luatio n th a t w ou ld s e rv e a s th e ba sis fo r a c ours e g ra de , an d th e ha

nd bo ok se t out a pr oc e ss by which students could appe al their fina l course grade . To pass a c linical cou rse, students wereNo. 07-5585

Ro ge rs v . Tn . B d. of R e

ge nts

- 3 - require d to rec eive se venty -five perc ent “satisfactory” mar ks on the final eva luation. The handbook provided that on a

ny clinical day

during which a stude nt perfor med at an “ unsatisfac tory ” leve l, the student would be notified that day , and that such unsatisfactory perf ormanc es would be docume nted
on a s tu d e n t c o mm

u n ic a ti o nf

o r m. T h e h an d

b o o k a ls o p r o v id e d

th a t s tu d e n ts in

d an g e r o f an
un satis fa c tor

y e va luatio n were to be no tif ie d b y the ins tr uc tor to g ive tho se stu de nts a

c ha nc e to improve by

the end of

the semester
. At so me po int

in N ov e mbe r 2 00 3, L og an is su e d a pr e lim ina ry e va luatio n r e g ard ingRog e rs ’ clinical per formanc e. L og an advised Roge rs that her c linical skills were unsatisfa ctory in various
are as and listed seve ral a rea s in whi ch R o gers ne eded to improve . At no time prior to the prel i m i n ary

evaluation did L og an communicate to Roge rs, either orally or throug h a student communication form, that Rog ers wa s in dang er of rec eiving an unsati s fa ct o ry final per formanc e rating . Throug hout the semester , Roge rs prepare d and subm itted to L og an “car e plans” to outline Rog e rs ’ f ind ing s and nurs ingsu g g e sti on s f or a ssi g ne d p a tie nts . L og an r e tur ne d th e se pla

ns to Roge rs with c omments suc h as “ver y g ood,” “che ck plus,” and “che ck.” Although none of the plans
a dv ise d Ro g e rs of

un satis fa c tor

y pe rf or manc e duri ngthe c ours e of the se me ste r, L og an d id a nn otate on Roge rs’ pre liminary

evaluation that Roger s “admitted to copy ing c are plans from c are plan books without refe renc ing the m.”
On Dec ember

10, 2003, L og an g ave Rog ers he r final c ourse e valuation. L og an, Dire ctor of Nurs ing Che ry

l McCa ll, and B arb ara

Mc Ne e ly , th e c ours e c oo rd ina tor , me t w ithRog e rs to d isc us s the final e valuation. Rog ers rece ived l ess t han satisfactory marks in thirteen c ateg ories, ca using he rNo. 07-5585

Ro ge rs v . Tn . B d. of R e

ge nts

- 4 - to fall short of the se venty -five pe rce nt require d to pass the cour se. Alongwi t h the eva luation ch ec k l i s t , L o gan p ro v i d edt w o ex p l an at o ry at t ac h m en t s re l at edt o R o ger s ’ p er fo rm an ce ra t i n g. Although written in diffe re n t t erms, the attachments conta in simi lar c riticisms of Roge rs’ c linical perf ormanc e. Amon g her e ight pe ers, Rog ers wa s the only nursing student to rece ive an unsatisfac tory

mark or a

failing g rade
. Af te r r e c e i v i n g h e r f

i n a l c o u r s e e v a l u a t i o n , R o g e r s a p p e a l e d h e r g r a d e i n a c c o r d a nc e wi th proce dures se t forth in the NursingHandbook. It is undisput ed that all of the proce dural requirem en t s fo r t he appe al wer e fulfilled. The handbook provide d that students initi ate a g rade
a pp e a l th ro ug h th e fo llo wi ngpr oc e ss:
1. Contact the instructor to ensur e that no ca l cu l at i on or administrative e rror has occur red.
2. I f the student believe s an appe al is warr anted after c onsulting with the instructor and the Dir ector

of Nursing , he/she must submit a n appea l in writing to the Dea n of He a lthPr og ra

ms a nd Nurs ing . I f t

he a pp e a l c ann ot b e sa

tis fa c tor ily

a dd re sse d at th is le ve l, t he stu de nt m ay

fo rw ard the wr itt e n a

pp e a l to the vic e pr e sid e nt f or Ac a de mic Affa irs. The aca demic vice president will r eview the appe al and notify the student of the d ec i s ion reg ardingthe appe al. The student, if not a g ree ing w ith the vice president’ s decision, may reque st a hea

ring b ef ore the colleg e’s Ac ademic A ffa irs Commi ttee. The Ac ademic A ffa irs Commi ttee will rec ommend to the vice pr esident for Ac adem i c Af

fairs a decision re g ardingthe appe al. The vic e pre sident for Aca demic Af

fairs w ill support or rever se the c ommi t t ee ’s recommendation and fo rw ard his re c omm e nd a tio n to the pr e sid e nt. Th e pr e sid e nt’ s d e c isi on wi ll b e fi na l. Roge rs’ g rade appea l prog resse d in the following sequenc e. On J an u ar y 5, 2004, Roge rs wrote to McCall to initiate the appeal. Roge rs ex plained the basis of her a ppeal a nd included seve ralNo. 07-5585

Ro ge rs v . Tn . B d. of R e

ge nts

- 5 - statements from her prec eptors and classmates. On J anuar y 14, 2004, Roge rs met with L og an, McNe ely , and McCall to re view Rog ers’ final eva luation. Prior to the meeting , McCall revie wed all information submitted by Roge rs and discusse d the mate ri al s wi t h fac ulty members. At the
c on c lus ion

of the me e tin g , M c Ca ll e xplain ed th at she w ou ld u ph old the g ra de ba se d o n Ro g e rs ’ failure to achieve the re quisite satisfactory marks and a dvised Roge rs that the n ex t s t ep was an appea l to Dean Ma

rty Rucker.
On Janu ar

y 1 4 , 2 0 0 4 , Ro g e r s d e li v e r e d a le tt e r to D e an Ru c k e r r e qu e s ti n g c o n ti nu a ti o n of her a ppeal. De an Rucke r i nitially met with Roge rs, but ref err ed Rog ers ba ck to McCall af ter Rog ers stated that she ha d not r eviewe d her clinical eva luation with L og an to her satisfac tion. On J anuar

y 21, 2004, Roge rs met with L og an, McCall, and M cN ee l y to reviewthe clinical e valuation. Following the re view, McCall ag ain denied Rog ers’ appea l. L ater that day , Roge rs m et with Dea n Rucker a nd McNe ely . Dea

n Rucker denied Roge rs’ appea l a fter revie wing both of L og an’s wr itten
e va luatio ns and

the mate ri a ls s ub mitte d b y Rog e rs . De an Ru c ke r t he n a dv ise d Ro g e rs that sh e c ou ld
a pp e a l th e de c isi on

to D r. Mary

L ou Ap ple , th e vic e pr e sid e nt f or Ac a de mic Af

fa ir s.
On Janu a ry 26 , 2 00 4, Rog e rs wr ote to D r. Ap ple re qu e sti ngc on tin uatio n o f her app e a l. Roge rs explained the basis of her appea l a nd provided Dr . Apple with var ious information, including letters fr om prec eptors and c lassmates. Dr. A pple wrote to Roge rs on Fe brua ry 5 , 2004, advising Roge rs that her

appea l was denie d. I n the letter, D r. Apple explained that she had met with L og an, Dea n Rucker, a

nd McCall to discuss the appea l and re viewed a ll the information that R o gersNo. 07-5585

Ro ge rs v . Tn . B d. of R e

ge nts

- 6 - provided. Dr . Apple advise d Rogers t h at s h e could appe al her decision to the Ac ademic A ffa irs Commi ttee.
On Marc h 1 1, 20 04 , th e Ac a de mic Affairs Comm itt e e me t to c on sid e r R og e rs ’ a pp e a l. Ro g e r s p r e s e n te d h e r a

p p e a l an d p r o v id e d to th e c o mm itte e a ll in f o r mati o n th a t s h e wished to be considere d. After

questioning both Rog ers a nd L og an, the c ommitt ee una nimously voted to deny Roge rs’ a ppeal. On Marc h 18, 2004, Dr. Apple notified Roge rs of the c ommitt ee’ s decision, stated that s h e co n cu rre d in that decision, and for war ded the r ecommendation of the committee to the President of WS CC, Dr . J ack Campbell. On Marc h 26, 2004, Dr. Campbell met with Rog ers to hea r the appe al. Followingthe meeting , Dr. Campbell advised Roge rs that he f ound no basis for
reve rsing t h e d ec i s i o n of the Ac ademic A ffa irs Commi ttee. B eca use WSC C policy

provides for only one re -application to the nursing pr og ram, Roge rs was barr ed from re- applying to the prog ram afte r her appea l was denie d.
On Dec ember 10, 2004, Roge rs filed in fe dera l court this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, naming as def endants the Te n n es s ee B oard of Reg ents, its members, WSC C, and sever al member s of the fa c ult y and a dmi nis tr a tio n o f WSC C. R og e rs a lle g e d th a t th e a c a de mic dis mis sa l f ro m WSCC violated her

proce dural a

nd substantive due proc es s ri g hts under the F ourtee nth Amendment, and soug ht equitable re lief in the for m of rea dmittance to t he nursing prog ram. On Septe mber 29, 2006, defe n d an t s filed a Motion for Summary J udg ment, arguing that Roge rs could not establish a proce dural or s u

b s tantive due pr ocess c laim. The district court g rante d defe ndants’ motion on March 7, 2007.No. 07-5585

Ro ge rs v . Tn . B d. of R e

ge nts

- 7 - B e c a us e R ogers was affo rdedcon st it ut io nal ly su ffici e nt p ro c e ss, a

nd be c a us e Rog e rs ’ i nte re st in her nursing education is not pr otected by substantive due proc ess, we a ffirm the district c ourt’s g rant of summar

y judgme nt.
I nitially , no g enuine issue of materia l fac t exi s t s as to whether WS CC afforde d Roge rs constitutionally

sufficie nt pr ocess befor e dismiss ing her from the nursing prog ram. To suc cee d on a proc edura l due proc ess claim under § 1983, Rogers “m ust establish a constitutionally protec ted liberty or proper

ty interest and showthat such an inter est was de prived without appropr iate proc ess.” Mi dk iff v . A da ms Cou nty

Re g’ l W ate r D ist ., 40 9 F .3 d 7 58 , 7 62 (6 th Cir . 200 5)
. I n ca se s o f a c a de mic dismiss al from a

state educ ational institut ion,
when the stude nt has bee n fully informed of

the fa culty ’s d issatisfaction with the s t u d en t’s aca demic prog ress a nd when the de cision to dismi ss was ca ref ul and deliberate, the F ourtee nth Amendment’s proc edura l due proc ess re q u irement ha s been me t. No fo rm al hea ring is require d for a cade mic decisions bec ause suc h aca demic dec isions “require [] an expert eval u ation of cumulative infor mation and [are] not readily

adapte d to the proce dural tools of judicial or administ rative decisionmaking .”
Ku v. Tennessee , 3 2 2 F. 3 d 4 3 1 , 4 3 6 (6 t hC i r. 2 0 0 3 ) ( qu o t i n g Bd. of Cura t o rs of Univ. of Mo. v. Ho ro witz , 435 U.S. 78, 90 (1978)) ( citation omitted). Here , assuming that Tenne ssee law provide s Roge rs with a constitutionally protec ted i ntere st in her nur sing e ducation, c f. K u , 322 F.3d at 435, the re cord indicates that Roge rs was f ully informed of

her unsatisfactory

clinical per formanc e and that the dec ision to di smiss R og ers wa s made c are fully and deliber ately
.No. 07-5585

Ro ge rs v . Tn . B d. of R e

ge nts

- 8 - First, the pr eliminary

and fina l evaluations complete d by L og an ade quately

conveyed the fac ulty ’s dissatisfaction with Rog ers’ aca demic progr ess. The e valuations listed the are as in which L og an b e lie ved Rog e rs wa s d e fi c ie nt, and the pr e lim ina

ry e va luatio n in fo rm e d Ro g e rs of are a s in which she ne eded to improve . Roge rs contends that she was not af forde d rea sonable prior

notice of he r i mpe nd ingfa ilure be c a us e L og an did no t f

ill out a stu de nt c omm

un ic a tio n f

or m or oth e rw ise
no tif y Rog e rs of

he r d e fi c ien t perf

or manc e be fo re iss uin g the pr e lim ina ry and fi na l e va luatio ns . Ho we ve r, a s Ku and Ho ro witz make c le ar, du e pr oc e ss s imp ly re qu ir e s th at the s tud e nt b e fu lly informed of

the fa cu l t y ’s d i ssatisfaction. L og an’s wr itten evaluations satisfy this requireme nt reg ardle ss of whethe r L og an fa iled to follow cer tain notice proc edure s set out i n the Nursing Handbook. Cf. Ho ro witz , 435 U.S. at 92 n.8 (disag ree ing that a university ’s failure t o follow its own
ru le s amou

nts to a c on sti tut ion a l vi olatio n) ; Schuler v. Univ. of Minn. , 788 F.2d 510, 515 ( 8th Cir. 1986). Second, the r ecor d indicates that the decision t o dismiss Roge rs from the nursingprog ram
wa s ma de c are fu lly and de lib e rate ly
. I nd e e d, the WSCC f a c ult y a ff or de d Ro g e rs mor e tha

n a de qu a te proce ss by

providing Roge rs wit h a fo rm al hea ring befor e the a cade mic committee. The Nursing Ha nd bo ok pr ov ide d f

or a g ra de a pp e a l pr oc e ss, and

it is undis pute d th a t th e ste ps of that pr oc e ss
wer e followe d. Roge rs appe aled he r g rade throug h five leve ls of the WSC C administration and prese nted her case in a hear ing format befor e an aca demic revie w board. The rec ord indicate s that Roge rs initially

met with L og an, McCall, and Mc Nee ly to d i s cu s s h er g rade . L og an wa s then ref err ed to Dea

n Rucker for the second step of t he appeal. Conce rned that Roge rs was not satisfiedNo. 07-5585

Ro ge rs v . Tn . B d. of R e

ge nts

- 9 - with the explanation she rec eived in the f irst meeting with L og an, M cC al l, and McNe ely , Dea n Rucker took the pr eca

utiona ry step of sendingRoge rs bac k to McCall to obtain a satisfac tory explana t i o n . Af

t er R o ger s ’ s ec o n d

m ee t i n g wi t hL o gan , M cC al l an d M cN ee l y , t h e ap p ea l progresse d throug h Dea

n Rucker, D r. Apple, a

n aca demic re view boar d, and Dr . Campbell. The re cord indicates that Roge rs was a

ble to provide a ll information she thoug ht r eleva nt to the various fa culty

members that hear d the appe al. The rec ord also indicates that those fac ulty members car efully considere d the information provided by Roge rs before makingtheir dec isions. Aside from bare asser tions, Roger s provides no evide nce indicating a lack of car eful a nd deliberate dec isionmaking on the part of WS CC’s faculty
. Moreove r, bec ause Rog ers’ interest in her nursing educa

tion is not protected by

substantive du e pr oc e ss, su mma

ry jud g me nt w a s p ro pe r o n h e r s ub sta nti ve du e pr oc e ss c la im. Th e Sup re me Court has assumed arguendo the possibilit y of a substantive due proce ss c laim in the context of a n
aca demic dis missal from a state instituti on. Se e Ho ro witz , 43 5 U. S. a t 91 –9 2; Rege nts of Univ. of Mich. v . Ewing , 474 U.S. 214, 222–23 (1985). Howe ver, in Be ll v . O hio Sta te Un iv e rsi ty , 351 F.3d 240 (6 t h C i r. 2003), this court re jected the notion that substantive due proce ss protects a me dical student’s interest in continuing educa tion. Id. at 249–51. After noting that the i ntere sts protected by substantive due proc ess are m uch narrowe r t han thos e prote cted by proce dural due proce ss, the court e x plained that [w] here . . . there is no equal protection violation, we can see no basis for f inding that a medica l student’s interest in continuing her medical school education is protected by substant i v e d u e proc ess. Certainly the contention that the medic al colleg e’sNo. 07-5585

Ro ge rs v . Tn . B d. of R e

ge nts

- 10 - actions w e r e ar

b it r ar y o r c a p r ic io u s c an n o t b e s u f

f ic ie n t; o th e r

w is e ju d ic ia l r e v ie w for c ompl ia

n c e w it h s u b s ta n ti v e d u e p r o c e s s w o u ld b e c o me th e e qu iv a le n t of a ty pic a l st a te or

fe de ra l A dmi nis tr a tiv e Pr oc e dure Ac t.
Id. at 251 (citation and footnote om itted). This court has, albeit i n an unpublished opinion, applied the holding of Be ll in a s u b s e qu e n t de c is io n d e n yin g a s u b s ta n ti v e d u e p r o c e s s c la im

in th e c o n te xt of an aca demic dismissal. Se e Mc Ge e v . S c ho olc ra ft Cm ty . Co ll. , 1 67 F . App ’x 42 9, 43 6– 37 (6 th Cir. 2006). L ike the plaintiff in McG ee , Roge rs “has not alleg ed any equal pr otection violation” and
asser ts an interest that is “virtua lly identical to the one asser ted in Be ll .” See id. at 437. Summary judgme nt was there fore proper on Roge rs’ substantive due proce ss claim.
For the fore g oing r easons, we aff irm.