Opinion ID: 2982261
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Neutral Decision Maker

Text: First, Satgunam claims that the district court erred in remanding to the Governing Board because it was not a neutral decision maker. He asserts that the individual Governing Board members were inherently biased because they are defendants in the underlying action, facing the prospect of liability for damages. Satgunam raises this issue for the first time on appeal. During the Injunction Hearing, the district court invited him to voice concerns about the Governing Board’s impartiality, and he declined to do so: THE COURT: . . . Do you have any concerns regarding the governing board in terms of their ability to fairly adjudicate an appeal which is consistent with due process? 8 MR. HERRON: In the abstract, no. With proper procedures and time and the due process required by the constitution, there’s nothing to think that group of individuals could not in the first instance render a fair opinion. Satgunam also did not introduce any impartiality contentions in his Emergency Motion to Modify Preliminary Injunction or his supporting brief. Generally, “an argument not raised before the district court is waived on appeal to this Court.” Scottsdale Ins. Co. v. Flowers, 513 F.3d 546, 552 (6th Cir. 2008). There are narrow exceptions to this rule that do not apply here; we have “rarely” exercised our discretion to depart from the rule, id., and we decline to do so here. See Overstreet v. Lexington-Fayette Urban Cnty. Gov’t, 305 F.3d 566, 578 (6th Cir. 2002) (holding that this Court “will not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal unless our failure to consider the issue will result in a plain miscarriage of justice”). We find that Satgunam has waived his right to argue this claim on appeal, and in turn find no error.3