Marinello v. Bushby, Civil Action No. 1:95cv167-D-D (N.D. Miss. 10/__/1996)

• Decision Date: 01 October 1996
• Docket Number: Civil Action No. 1:95cv167-D-D.
• Parties: ANTHONY MARINELLO, PLAINTIFF, v. PHILLIP BUSHBY, individually and in his official capacity as Academic Program Director of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Mississippi State University, and DWIGHT MERCER, individually and in his official capacity as Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Mississippi State University, DEFENDANTS.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Northern District of Mississippi

Page 1

ANTHONY MARINELLO, PLAINTIFF, v. PHILLIP BUSHBY, individually and in his official capacity as Academic Program Director of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Mississippi State University, and DWIGHT MERCER, individually and in his official capacity as Dean of the College of Veterinary Medicine at Mississippi State University, DEFENDANTS.

Civil Action No. 1:95cv167-D-D.

United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division.

October __, 1996.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

Presently before the court is the motion of the defendants in this cause for the entry of summary judgment on their behalf with regard to the plaintiff's claims against them. Finding that the motion is only partially well taken, the undersigned shall grant it in part and deny it in part. This matter shall proceed to trial as set forth below.

I. Factual Background¹

This matter arises out of the plaintiff's criticism and commentary concerning several of his professors during the process of the appeal of a grade received at the College of Veterinary Medicine ("CVM") at Mississippi State University. In light of the posture of this case, the court feels that a chronological description of the facts would be more efficient and more easily understood:

                September 1991     The plaintiff Anthony Marinello applies for admission to the CVM academic
                                   curriculum, seeking to obtain the degree of Doctor of Veterinary Medicine
                                   ("DVM"). In his signed application to the CVM, Mr. Marinello agreed to
                                   "maintain the highest degree of honesty, integrity, and professional standards
                                   while enrolled in the College of Veterinary Medicine and to conduct myself
                                   in a manner consistent with the code of Student Conduct of Mississippi State
                                   University and the adopted rules and regulations of the College of Veterinary
                                   Medicine." Defendants' Exhibit 1 to Motion Hearing of 6/6/95, Plaintiff's
                                   Application of Admission to the CVM. The existing Academic Performance
                                   Standards of the CVM note that a student's performance will be reviewed by
                                   the Academic Board of the CVM when that student fails to exhibit desirable
                

                                   professional behavior. Defendants' Exhibit 4A to Motion Hearing of 6/6/95
                                   Academic Performance Standards of the CVM
                                   "The DVM curriculum is divided into four phases. Students are admitted to
                                   one phase at a time. The Phase 1 student who desires to continue in the
                                   DVM program must formally apply for admission to Phase 2. Likewise, the
                                   Phase 2 student must formally apply for admission to Phase 3 and the Phase
                                   3 student must formally apply for admission to Phase 4." Defendants'
                                   Exhibit 4A to Motion Hearing of 6/6/95, Academic Performance Standards
                                   of the CVM, Unnumbered page 8
                March 1992         The plaintiff is admitted as a student of the CVM as a member of the class of
                                   1996. Mr. Marinello subsequently begins classes
                February 1994      The CVM changes its four phase DVM curricula to a two phase one
                

"The Academic Program, with the start of 1994, began a gradual change in the use of the expression `Phase.' With the first two years of the curriculum being converted to problem-based learning and a faculty group studying the best structure and sequencing of the last two years, the Program is changing the Phase designations.

Phase 1: will consist of the first five semesters, all of the problem-based learning semesters; and will be divided into freshman and sophomore years.

Phase 2: will eventually consist of the last five semesters, comprising the clinical rotations and elective options in the curriculum, and will be divided into junior and senior years.

The intent of the change is to more logically group components of the curriculum. Like the implementation of the PBL, this change in terminology is intended to follow the progression of the Class of 1997 through the curriculum." Defendants' Exhibit 4A to Motion Hearing of 6/6/95, unnumbered page 9, Academic Program News, February 1994 (emphasis added). The student handbooks, however, are changed to reflect that the CVM uses a two-tier system and do not reflect this intent to implement such a gradual change.

                May 1994           Mr. Marinello is placed on academic probation at the CVM for receiving an
                                   "F" grade in the class of "Equine Health and Disease," taken the previous
                                   semester. The CVM denies him admission to Phase 3 of the curriculum
                                   pending the remedial action of retaking the failed class
                Summer 1994        Mr. Marinello repeats the class "Equine Health and Disease," receiving a
                                   grade of "C."
                August 1994        The CVM admits the plaintiff to Phase 3 of the curriculum in light of Mr.
                                   Marinello's retaking of the failed class over the summer. The CVM does not,
                                   however, remove the plaintiff from Academic Probation.
                

"While on probation, a grade of `D' this next semester would result in continuation of probationary status. A grade of `D' in two or more courses or a GPA of less than 2.0 would result in denial of admission to the next Phase. Failure of one or more courses would result in dismissal from the program. Probationary status will be removed following a semester with no grades lower than a C." Defendants' Exhibit 7 to Motion Hearing held 6/6/95, Letter from defendant Bushby to plaintiff Marinello dated August 4, 1994.

                Fall 1994          Mr. Marinello receives a grade of "D" in the class entitled "Food Animal
                                   Practice."
                October 21, 1994   Mr. Marinello writes an appeal letter to the Academic Performance and
                                   Standards Committee. In the body of the letter, the plaintiff makes several
                                   critical references to professors at the CVM.
                

"The following letter is an official appeal to my final evaluation regarding the Food Animal rotation. After receiving this evaluation, it has become quite clear to me that politics, cowardice, and corruptness have transcended the obligation of certain Food Animal faculty members to impartially educate those students involved in their rotation . . . "

Plaintiff's Exhibit 2 to Motion Hearing held 6/6/95, Letter by Plaintiff dated 21, 1994. It is unclear to the court how many people received a copy of this letter from the plaintiff.

                November 22, 1994  Dr. J. Roger Easley, one of the plaintiff's professors referenced in Mr.
                                   Marinello's October 21 letter, writes to defendant Mercer and requests that
                                   Mercer "have Mr. Anthony Marinello evaluated by the Academic
                                   Performance and Standards Committee for violation of standards of
                                   reasonable professional behavior. Specifically, I am charging Mr. Marinello
                                   with false accusations, distortion of facts, and slanderous comments [in the
                                   October 21 letter] made against four faculty members, including myself."
                                   Plaintiff's Exhibit 4 to Motion Hearing held 6/6/95, Letter from Dr. Easley
                                   to defendant Mercer. The letter goes on to detail the particular reasons why
                                   Dr. Easley is requesting this action.
                November 28, 1994  Mr. Marinello receives a copy of Dr. Easley's letter during a meeting with
                                   defendant Mercer.
                November 29, 1994  Mr. Marinello writes to defendant Mercer concerning Dr. Easley's letter.
                                   Plaintiff's Exhibit 5 to Motion Hearing held 6/6/95, Letter from plaintiff to
                                   defendant Mercer.
                November 30, 1994  Defendant Mercer, after letter of recommendation from the Academic
                                   Performance and Standards Committee, declines to change the plaintiff's
                                   appealed "D" grade and so informs the plaintiff by letter. No mention of the
                                   plaintiff's criticism of his professors is mentioned in this correspondence.
                

"As discussed with you on November 28, 1994, you have the option to appeal this grade to the next highest administrative level, that being the Provost and Vice President of Academic Affairs, Dr. Derek Hodgson." Defendants' Exhibit 1 to Motion Hearing held 6/6/95, Letter to plaintiff Marinello from defendant Mercer dated November 30, 1994.

                December 19, 1994  Dr. Vernon Langston informs the plaintiff by letter of a special committee
                                   formed by defendant Mercer:
                

"Dean Mercer has convened a special committee to review the professional conduct relevant to your interaction with faculty during your food animal clinical rotation. More specifically, the committee is to examine evidence on both sides of the issue and advise him as to whether faculty harassment occurred, and whether there was a breach in professional conduct expected of students." Defendants' Exhibit 13 to Motion Hearing held 6/6/95, Letter to plaintiff from Dr. Vernon C. Langston dated December 19, 1994.

The plaintiff's school handbook for that year contained the following provision:

Academic Review:

A student's performance will be reviewed by the Academic Board or the appropriate academic committee in the following circumstances:

1. Repeated absenteeism.

2. Failure to exhibit desirable professional behavior.

Following academic review of a student's performance with the student, the Program has wide latitude but may include the following actions:

1. The student will be required to improve on class attendance and/or behavior.

2. The student will be placed on academic or disciplinary probation.

3. The student will be assigned appropriate remedial action.

4. The student will be required to repeat specific courses, activities or Phases.

5....