UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

_________________________________ 

MARC RUBAT DU MERAC, 

 Plaintiff - Appellant, 

v. 

COLORADO SCHOOL OF MINES, 

 Defendant - Appellee. 

No. 15-1196 

(D.C. No. 1:14-CV-01656-RBJ) 

(D. Colo.) 

_________________________________ 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT*

_________________________________ 

Before GORSUCH, McKAY, and BACHARACH, Circuit Judges. 

_________________________________ 

Marc Rubat du Merac was a graduate student and research assistant at the 

Colorado School of Mines when a female undergraduate filed a grievance with the 

school alleging that he had sexually harassed her. In turn, Mr. du Merac submitted 

his own grievance asserting that the allegations were false and for several months the 

school investigated the competing complaints. While the school’s investigation was 

ongoing, Mr. du Merac contacted various witnesses on his own initiative, sending 

them copies of each grievance along with excerpts from Colorado’s criminal libel 

 *

 After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined 

unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist in the determination of 

this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore 

ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding 

precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral 

estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with 

Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1. 

FILED 

United States Court of Appeals

Tenth Circuit 

March 22, 2016

Elisabeth A. Shumaker 

Clerk of Court
2 

statute and a suggestion that “any person [who] aids or abets a person [who] is 

engaged in criminal libel could be considered [an] accessory to this felony.” In the 

end, the school’s investigation determined that the undergraduate’s complaint was 

meritorious, that Mr. du Merac’s was not, and that Mr. du Merac’s contact with 

witnesses constituted retaliation for a meritorious complaint. As a consequence of its 

findings, the school suspended Mr. du Merac for fifteen months, a result that, in turn, 

spelled the loss of his funded research position. 

For his part, Mr. du Merac replied at this point with a lawsuit under both state 

and federal law, one alleging that the school had engaged in reverse sex 

discrimination. But at summary judgment the district court concluded that Mr. du 

Merac hadn’t shown either a prima facie case of discrimination or that the school’s 

proffered reasons for the suspension were pretextual. Now on appeal and proceeding 

pro se, Mr. du Merac insists that the district court erred and that the district court 

judge colluded with the school and is biased against him. He also levels before us a 

host of additional claims that he never presented to the district court. 

Having carefully examined the briefs, record, and applicable law — and 

construing his pro se arguments as liberally as we might — we are unable to discern 

any reversible error in the district court’s decision and so adopt it as our own. 

Further, Mr. du Merac’s allegations of collusion between the district court judge and 

the school are unsubstantiated on the record we have. See Liteky v. United States, 

510 U.S. 540, 555-56 (1994). And his various new claims — alleging violations of 

the First Amendment, the Due Process Clause, the Colorado State Employee 
3 

Protection Act, the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, and the Higher 

Education Opportunity Act, along with various administrative and contract violations 

— are not properly before this court. See Tele-Commc’ns, Inc. v. C.I.R., 12 F.3d 

1005, 1007 (10th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, the district court’s decision is affirmed 

and the appeal is dismissed. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Neil M. Gorsuch 

Circuit Judge