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 st udent and research assistant at the Colorado School of Mines when a female u ndergraduate 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 allegati ons were false and for several months the school investigated the competing complain ts. While the school’s investigation was ongoing, Mr. du Merac contacted various witnesses on his own initiative, sending them copies of each grieva nce along with excerpts from Colorado’s criminal libel

* After examining the briefs and appellate record, th is panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not ma terially 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 This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctr ines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cite d, however, for its persuasi ve 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 Court2 statute and a suggestion that “any person [who] aids or abets a person [who] is engaged in criminal libel coul d be considered [an] accessory to this felony.” In the end, the school’s investigation determin ed that the undergradua te’s complaint was meritorious, that Mr. du Me rac’s was not, and that Mr. du Merac’s contact with witnesses constituted retaliati on for a meritorious complaint. As a consequence of its findings, the school suspended Mr. du Merac for fifteen mont hs, a result th at, in turn, spelled the loss of his f unded research position. For his part, Mr. du Merac replied at this point with a lawsuit under both state and federal law, one alleging that th e school had engage d 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 discrimi nation or that the school’s proffered reasons for the su spension were pretextual. Now on appeal and proceeding pro se, Mr. du Merac insists th at the district court erred and that the district court judge colluded with the school a nd is biased against him. He also levels before us a host of additional claims that he neve r 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 cour t’s decision and so adopt it as our own. Further, Mr. du Merac’s allegations of collu sion 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 Proces s Clause, the Colorado State Employee3 Protection Act, the Family Educational Rights and Pr ivacy Act, and the Higher Education Opportunity Act, along with vari ous 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