Court Opinion

ID: 9554459
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-09 00:00:39.607767+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:33:44.117924
License: Public Domain

Case: 23-10445         Document: 00516850783             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/08/2023

              United States Court of Appeals
                   for the Fifth Circuit
                                      ____________
                                                                                United States Court of Appeals
                                                                                         Fifth Circuit
                                     Summary Calendar
                                       No. 23-10445                                    FILED
                                     ____________                                 August 8, 2023
                                                                                  Lyle W. Cayce
   Gregory Ifesinachi Ezeani,                                                          Clerk

                                                                     Plaintiff—Appellant,

                                             versus

   Melinda H. Reagan, President of Amberton University,

                                                Defendant—Appellee.
                      ______________________________

                      Appeal from the United States District Court
                          for the Northern District of Texas
                               USDC No. 3:22-CV-2015
                      ______________________________

   Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
   Per Curiam: *
          Plaintiff-Appellant Gregory Ifesinachi Ezeani, proceeding pro se,
   appeals the district court’s dismissal of his suit against Defendant-Appellee
   Melinda Reagan, the president of Amberton University, for violations of the
   Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments in refusing to award him a
   second graduate degree. After obtaining a Master of Science degree in Agile

          _____________________
          *
              This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10445      Document: 00516850783           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                     No. 23-10445

   Project Management (APM), Ezeani attempted to apply APM degree credits
   toward a second degree, but Amberton University did not award Ezeani the
   second degree, maintaining he did not satisfy the requirements. The district
   judge referred the case to a magistrate judge, who, construing Ezeani’s claims
   as brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, recommended dismissing the suit for
   failing to allege Reagan, as president of a private university, acted under color
   of state law as required by § 1983. Ezeani filed objections, and the district
   judge overruled the objections; adopted the findings, conclusions, and
   recommendations of the magistrate judge; and dismissed the case.
          We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure
   to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo and
   must determine whether the pleaded facts state plausible claims that are
   cognizable in law. NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton, 804 F.3d 389, 393 (5th
   Cir. 2015) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). While
   “pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards” than those drafted
   by a lawyer, “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as
   factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” Taylor v.
   Books A Million, Inc., 296 F.3d 376, 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (first quoting Miller
   v. Stanmore, 636 F.2d 986, 988 (5th Cir. 1981); and then quoting S. Christian
   Leadership Conf. v. Sup. Ct. of the State of La., 252 F.3d 781, 786 (5th Cir.
   2001)).
          As an initial matter, Ezeani argues this matter was improperly referred
   to a magistrate judge without his consent. Referral of a motion to dismiss for
   failure to state a claim is made under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), and consent
   of the parties is not required under this subsection. Newsome v. E.E.O.C., 301
   F.3d 227, 231 (5th Cir. 2002).
          Turning to the merits, § 1983 imposes liability only on those who
   interfere with federal rights while acting under color of state law, meaning

                                          2
Case: 23-10445      Document: 00516850783          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/08/2023

                                    No. 23-10445

   their allegedly wrong action is “fairly attributable to the State.” Rendell-
   Baker v. Kohn, 457 U.S. 830, 838 (1982) (quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.,
   457 U.S. 922, 937 (1982)). On appeal, Ezeani argues Reagan acted under
   color of state law, even though she is president of a private university,
   because education is a traditional public function and Texas licensed
   Amberton University to operate as a private university. However, the
   Supreme Court has rejected similar arguments, holding a private high school
   did not act under color of state law simply by participating in the field of
   education because education is not “traditionally the exclusive prerogative of
   the State.” Id. at 842 (quoting Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co., 419 U.S. 345, 353
   (1974)). The Court also held the fact that the private school was subject to
   state regulations did not make the school a state actor because the challenged
   action was “not compelled or even influenced by any state regulation.” Id.
   Ezeani’s arguments fail for the same reasons here.
          AFFIRMED.

                                          3