Case Name: Judith K. MEISENHELDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW, INC., DefendantAppellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2010-09-14
Citations: 395 F. App'x 669
Docket Number: No. 10-11224
Parties: Judith K. MEISENHELDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW, INC., DefendantAppellee.
Judges: Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 395
Pages: 669–669

Head Matter:
Judith K. MEISENHELDER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. FLORIDA COASTAL SCHOOL OF LAW, INC., DefendantAppellee.
No. 10-11224
Non-Argument Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit.
Sept. 14, 2010.
Jay Meisenhelder, Haskin & Larue, LLP, Indianapolis, IN, Mike E. Jorgensen, Law Office of Mike E. Jorgensen, Jacksonville, FL, for Plaintiff-Appellant.
Mark G. Alexander, Kelly L. Degance, Alexander Degance Barnett, P.A., Jacksonville, FL, for Defendant-Appellee.
Before TJOFLAT, MARCUS and FAY, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This case stems from appellant's dismissal from appellee's law school for failing to maintain the required minimum grade point average. In a two-count complaint, appellant claimed that appellee discriminated against her in violation of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act by faffing to make reasonable accommodations for her disabilities. As the district court noted in its February 18, 2010 order granting appellee's motion for summary judgment, appellant "had a long history of migraine headaches and suffered from depression." Order at 2. She also suffered from "an eating disorder." Id.
The district court's summary judgment order lays out the salient facts regarding appellant's relationship with appellee's law school over a period that extended from the fall of 2004 to her dismissal from the school in the late summer of 2008. The district court concluded, on the basis of those facts, that appellant failed to establish that she suffered from a disability as defined by the ADA or Section 504. The court went one step further and assuming that appellant had established such disability, she failed to show that appellee failed reasonably to accommodate it.
We discern no error in the district court's disposition of appellant's claims. We therefore affirm its judgment.
AFFIRMED.
. Appellant claims in her brief that the district court erred when it failed to address her claim that appellee retaliated against her following her formal request for an accommodation of her disabilities. Appellant's complaint did not present the claim; thus, the court committed no error in failing to consider it.