32 F.3d 570 (7th Cir. 1994), 93-1799, Ruh v. Samerjan
|Citation:||32 F.3d 570|
|Party Name:||Christine A. RUH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Stephen B. SAMERJAN, Board of Regents of the University of Wisconsin System, Katherine Lyall, Clifford Smith, John Schroeder, Martha Bulluck, University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, and University of Wisconsin System, Defendants-Appellees.|
|Case Date:||August 01, 1994|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Submitted June 22, 1994. [*]
This opinion appears in the Federal reporter in a table titled "Table of Decisions Without Reported Opinions". (See FI CTA7 Rule 53 regarding use of unpublished opinions)
Appeal from the United States District Court, for the Eastern District of Wisconsin, No. 92 C 278; Myron L. Gordon, Judge.
E.D.Wis., 816 F.Supp. 1326.
Before RIPPLE and MANION, Circuit Judges, and GRANT, District Judge. [**]
Christine Ruh appeals from the dismissal of her civil rights action filed pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In her second amended complaint, she contends that Stephen Samerjan, an art professor at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee ("UWM"), retaliated against her after she complained to him about their previous intimate relationship. Allegedly, he failed to attend scheduled appointments, gave her lower grades than she thought she deserved, and criticized her in a demeaning manner. Furthermore, she alleges that Samerjan's reading of the complaint she filed with the university to the Executive Committee of the UWM Art Department defamed her and constituted yet another act of discrimination and harassment. The remaining defendants [hereinafter "university defendants"] are charged with failing to investigate and process her formal complaints against Samerjan in violation of Title IX, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681-1688, and the Equal Protection Clause. Finally, all the defendants are charged with negligently or intentionally inflicting emotional distress upon Ruh due to their failure to address her complaints. Ruh raises four issues on appeal. Reviewing the motion to dismiss de novo, Hinnen v. Kelly, 992 F.2d 140, 142 (7th Cir.1993), we affirm.
First, Ruh contends that her suit against the defendants in their official capacities for monetary relief was improperly dismissed because the defendants are agents of the Board of Regents, a corporate entity capable of being sued. 1 See Wis.Stat. § 36.07(1) (1991-92)...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP