Logar v. W. Va. Univ. Bd. of Governors

Decision Date21 August 2013
Docket NumberCivil Action No. 1:13-CV-145
CourtU.S. District Court — Northern District of West Virginia
PartiesCYRIL M. LOGAR and R. STEPHEN SEARS, Plaintiffs, v. WEST VIRGINIA UNIVERSITY BOARD OF GOVERNORS, including members from 2010 through the present, a West Virginia State Board; NIGEL CLARK, individually and as Special Academic Integrity Officer of West Virginia University; MARJORIE A. McDIARMID, individually and as the Steptoe and Johnson Professor of Law and Technology and Academic Integrity Officer for West Virginia University; E. JANE MARTIN, Ph.D., individually and as former Provost of West Virginia University; JAMES P. CLEMENTS, individually and as current President of West Virginia University; and MICHELE G. WHEATLY, current Provost of West Virginia University, Defendants.

Judge Bailey

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS

Pending before this Court are the Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Marjorie McDiarmid [Doc. 18], the Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of West Virginia University Board of Governors, E. Jane Martin, James P. Clements, and Michele G. Wheatly [Doc. 22], and the Motion to Dismiss on Behalf of Defendant Nigel Clark [Doc. 30]. Briefing on all three Motions has been completed, and the Motions are ripe for decision. For the reasons statedbelow, this Court will grant all three Motions.

I. Procedural History

On December 3, 2010, the plaintiffs in the present case, Cyril M. Logar and R. Stephen Sears, filed a complaint in this Court against many of the same defendants in the present case pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 [1:10-CV-201-FPS, Doc. 1]["Logar I"]. In the prior case, the plaintiffs stated that the defendants deprived them of their liberty and property rights without due process, knowingly and intentionally sabotaged their reputations, deprived them of certain benefits and privileges commensurate with their positions as administrators and tenured faculty members at West Virginia University ("WVU"), and failed to adhere to WVU's established procedures for conducting academic misconduct investigations.

Thereafter, Marjorie A. McDiarmid filed a motion to dismiss, James P. Clements, C. Peter McGrath, and West Virginia University Board of Governors ("WVU BOG") filed a motion to dismiss, Mary Roberta Brandt and Beverly D. Kerr filed a motion to dismiss, and E. Jane Martin filed a motion to dismiss. On July 28, 2010, this Court entered an order notifying the parties of its intent of possible conversion of the motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment as to the issue of the statute of limitations and directed the parties to submit affidavits to this Court in which the parties should provide this Court with certain dates relevant to the statute of limitations applicable to the plaintiffs' claims. The parties complied with this request.

On September 15, 2011, this Court converted the defendants' motions to dismiss into motions for summary judgment and granted each of the motions on the grounds thatthe plaintiffs' claims were time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations applicable to civil rights actions based upon the two-year statute of limitations in tort actions in West Virginia. Logar v. West Virginia Univ. Bd. Of Govs., 2011 WL 4345973 (N.D. W.Va. September 15, 2011. [1:10-CV-201-FPS, Doc. 150]. The same day, this Court entered judgment in this matter, dismissing the case with prejudice. [Id., Doc. 151].

Following dismissal, the plaintiffs filed a joint motion separately requesting that this Court alter or amend its judgment for the defendants pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e), and that it grant leave to the plaintiffs to file an amended complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(a)(2). In the motion, the plaintiffs argue that they should be given leave to amend their complaint to add contract-based and 42 U.S.C. § 1982 claims which they believe do not implicate the statute of limitations issues addressed in this Court's memorandum opinion and order dismissing the case. They further request that this Court reconsider its prior determination regarding the application of the statute of limitations to time-bar the claims in their original complaint, claiming that this Court's original opinion constituted plain error.

The defendants filed a joint memorandum in response in which it is argued that the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend should be denied on the bases of undue delay and prejudice to the defendants. Additionally, the defendants argue that the plaintiffs' motion to alter or amend judgment should be denied because no new information has been introduced by the plaintiffs which justifies a request for reconsideration of this Court's original opinion, and that the plaintiffs are attempting to use this motion to raise arguments which could have been raised before the judgment in this case, which, they argue, is inappropriate. The plaintiffs timely replied to this response.

On January 25, 2012, this Court issued its Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying Plaintiffs' Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment and for Leave to File an Amended Complaint. Logar v. West Virginia Univ. Bd. Of Govs., 2012 WL 243692 (N.D. W.Va. January 25, 2012). [Id., Doc. 163].

The plaintiffs took an appeal to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, which affirmed both decisions. Logar v. West Virginia Univ. Bd. Of Govs., 493 Fed.Appx. 460 (4th Cir. September 7, 2012) [Id., Doc. 169].

On May 14, 2013, the plaintiffs filed the present action, asserting that an August 1, 2012, determination terminating the misconduct investigation triggered a duty to remediate any damage to the plaintiffs' reputations. The pending Motions to Dismiss were then filed.

II. Facts1

In October 2007, a local media outlet contacted West Virginia University ("WVU") inquiring about whether a particular student ("Student A") completed and earned an "eMBA" degree at WVU. The plaintiffs, then Dean and Associate Dean of the College of Business and Economics at WVU, conducted an investigation at the request of then Provost, Gerald Lang, and concluded that Student A had not completed the degree. On October 15, 2007, the plaintiffs attended a meeting allegedly called by defendant and then WVU President Michael Garrison. Then WVU General Counsel Alex Macia, Lang, and then director of the MBA program Paul Speaker were also allegedly at the meeting. The plaintiffs aver that General Counsel Macia advised them that Student A had earned the degree. PlaintiffSears states that he was told to send a letter to the inquiring media outlet, stating that Student A had earned her degree.

The media outlet then made three Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests. In April 2008, a special investigative panel from the media outlet issued a report regarding their findings. On May 30, 2008, Garrison submitted a letter to defendant McDiarmid, Academic Integrity Officer for WVU, in which he requested an investigation of the potential academic misconduct committed by plaintiff Sears and/or any other person. Garrison then submitted his resignation as president of WVU on June 6, 2008, effective August 31, 2008. The Office of General Counsel sent a memorandum to the plaintiffs on June 16, 2008, informing them that the Academic Integrity Committee had requested the cooperation of the General Counsel's office in the Student A investigation. The memorandum instructed the plaintiffs to make available any and all documents relevant to the investigation. The plaintiffs contended that this constituted specific legal advice and direction to the plaintiffs.

Defendant McDiarmid named several individuals to serve on the screening subcommittee, including defendant Kerr, then deputy general counsel at WVU. The screening subcommittee issued a report on July 17, 2008. McDiarmid mailed the plaintiffs this report via university mail on July 21, 2008. On August 1, 2008, counsel for Sears sent McDiarmid a letter seeking an extension of time to respond to the screening subcommittee report. On August 5, 2008, Logar sent McDiarmid a letter responding to the screening subcommittee report. The plaintiffs state that Macia and other persons acting in the General Counsel's office submitted documents for review by the screening subcommittee, which included Kerr, who was also employed in the General Counsel's office at the same time. The screening subcommittee report stated that no testimony or documentaryevidence indicated that Macia or Garrison knew of or were involved with the generation of the records sent to admissions and records. The plaintiffs state that no reference was made by the screening subcommittee to the alleged fact that Macia had given legal advice and actively participated in the October 15, 2007 meeting, or that he had participated in communications regarding the Student A matter before and after the meeting.

Defendant McDiarmid then named a discovery subcommittee hearing panel. In December 2008, defendant McDiarmid sent letters to the plaintiffs informing them that they were being charged with academic misconduct. The plaintiffs allege that Kerr attended the hearings of the discovery subcommittee and served as its legal counsel. The discovery subcommittee brought charges of academic misconduct against the plaintiffs on December 3, 2008. The subcommittee's report contained the affirmative statements that records were fabricated, grades falsified, and that the plaintiffs had failed to comply with institutional requirements related to teaching and learning.

On February 24, 2009, Lang, who was also charged with misconduct by the screening subcommittee, filed a petition for writ of prohibition with the Circuit Court of Monongalia County, which sought to terminate disciplinary proceedings due to conflict of interest. The plaintiffs in this action moved to intervene in these proceedings on April 20, 2009, and the petition was heard by the Susan B. Tucker, Monongalia County Circuit Court Judge,...

To continue reading

Request your trial

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT