Opinion ID: 219821
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Alexander’s Due Process Claim

Text: Finally, we address Alexander’s allegation that his right to due process of law was violated by Defendants’ alleged failure to provide him with the responses to the faculty survey. To prevail on a due process claim under § 1983, Alexander must show that, by delaying in providing him with the survey responses, Defendants, who were state actors, denied him meaningful access to the courts by concealing evidence crucial to his case. See Swekel v. City of River Rouge, 119 F.3d 1259, 1263–64 (6th Cir. 1997). Defendants did not deny Alexander meaningful access to the courts. He was not prevented from filing this lawsuit. He was provided with the survey results he requested while this action was before the district court. Alexander contends that the responses to the survey were not genuine, but his only evidence of such fraud is that he was initially informed that there were 31 respondents, when the data included 33, and that the data were re-formatted into a spreadsheet. He admits that the results supplied no evidence of use in this suit. Alexander has presented no evidence that Defendants’ failure to swiftly provide him with the survey results prevented him from obtaining an effective remedy through this litigation. See id. at 1264. Defendants are therefore entitled to summary judgment on Alexander’s due process claim.