Mwabira-Simera v. Morgan State Univ.
| Decision Date | 26 March 2013 |
| Docket Number | Civil Action No. ELH-10-1497 |
| Parties | SAMUEL H. MWABIRA-SIMERA, Plaintiff, v. MORGAN STATE UNIVERSITY, et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Maryland |
Samuel H. Mwabira-Simera, the self-represented plaintiff, is a former student at Morgan State University ("Morgan State" or the "University"). He filed this action against the University and seven of its officers and employees, defendants,1 alleging discrimination on the basis of race, national origin, and disability, as well as a host of related claims.2
Several of plaintiffs' claims were dismissed by an Order issued by Judge Blake on September 30, 2010 (ECF 12), granting defendants' "Motion to Partially Dismiss Complaint" (ECF 5). What remains, as best as can be discerned from a liberal reading of the Complaint, areclaims of (1) discrimination on the basis of race and national origin under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000d et seq.; and (2) discrimination on the basis of disability under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act ("ADA"), 42 U.S.C. §§ 12101 et seq., and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. §§ 791 et seq.
Following discovery, defendants filed a "Renewed Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Motion") (ECF 66), supported by exhibits. The Motion has been fully briefed,3 and no hearing is necessary to resolve it. See Local Rule 105.6. For the reasons set forth below, I will grant the Motion.
The essence of plaintiff's complaint is that, as a student at Morgan State, he was the victim of a "racially discriminatory graded course," Complaint ¶ 7 (ECF 2), and that he was "failed based on disability, race, and filth [sic] place of origin," ECF 74 at 5. For their part, defendants maintain that plaintiff was given a failing grade because he committed plagiarism. As a self-represented litigant, plaintiff is entitled to a liberal construction of his pleadings. See, e.g., Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U .S. 89, 94 (2007). Moreover, given the posture of the case, the record is reviewed in the light most favorable to plaintiff. See, e.g., Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari, 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4th Cir. 1993). The relevant facts follow.
Plaintiff is a native of Uganda, Complaint ¶ 2, where he states that he was the victim of state-sponsored torture. See Deposition of Samuel H. Mwabira-Simera at 15-17 ("Mwabira-Simera Dep."), Ex. A to Motion (ECF 66-2). As a result of this torture, plaintiff asserts that he has a physical disability that affects his walking, mobility, talking, communication, hearing,sight, and memory. He also claims to suffer from post-traumatic stress disorder. Id. Defendants do not dispute that plaintiff has one or more disabilities within the meaning of the ADA and the Rehabilitation Act.
In the spring of 2007, plaintiff enrolled as an undergraduate student at Morgan State in Baltimore, Maryland. Complaint ¶ 7. Plaintiff registered with the University's Student Disability Services office, through which he was provided with note-takers, a tape recorder, and extended time on examinations, in order to accommodate the disabilities that affect his speed of writing. Mwabira-Simera Dep. at 16-19.
In the fall of 2008, Plaintiff enrolled in a course titled "Geography 309: Urban Land Use," taught by Dr. Sarah Smiley. Id. at 20. On or about October 18 or 19, 2008, plaintiff took the second scheduled mid-term examination for that course. Id. at 42. According to the examination instructions, submitted by defendants as Exhibit B to the Motion (ECF 66-3), Mr. Mwabira-Simera's examination was to be completed within a 100-minute time limit (which was double the time allotted for other students without qualifying disabilities). See id.; see also Mwabira-Simera Dep. at 38-39. The examination contained one multiple-choice section, a second section requiring the student to define five terms in one or two sentences each, and a third section requiring single-paragraph answers to each of five questions. See Ex. B to Motion. Apparently, Mr. Mwabira-Simera's examination was proctored by staff from the University's Student Disability Services office. See Mwabira-Simera Dep. at 38-39. The exam instructions expressly stated: Ex. B to Motion (emphasis and capitalization in original).
Shortly after the exam, on October 24th, Dr. Smiley met with plaintiff in her office, and she informed him that she believed he had committed "academic dishonesty" on his mid-term exam and began to question him on the substance of the exam to test his knowledge of the material. Opposition at 6, 8. Additionally, in his Opposition, plaintiff claims that, at that meeting, Dr. Smiley "insulted and insinuated [sic]" him with a "racial slur." Opposition at 6.
On October 27, 2008, Dr. Smiley sent an email to plaintiff, recommending that he meet with her and Dr. Denicia Fowler, of the Student Disability Services office, to discuss the Geography 309 mid-term exam. See ECF 66-4 (email). At this second meeting, which took place on November 3, plaintiff was again asked "to answer the [mid-term] examination questions in the presence of both Dr. Sarah Smiley and Dr. Fowler so that [he] could prove to them that [he] did the work independently." ECF 74-5 at 3. In his Opposition, plaintiff claims that when Dr. Fowler left the room to attend to another student, Dr. Smiley called him "filth jungle [sic]," and said he would "never pass her exam." Opposition at 6.4
On November 5, 2008, plaintiff emailed Dr. Annette Palmer, the Chair of the Department of History and Geography, to file a grievance against Dr. Smiley. See Ex. 4 to Opposition (ECF 74-5) (grievance). In his grievance, plaintiff contended that Dr. Smiley had "implemented a racist bias against" him and "marked [his] first paper in her racist mindset." Id. He requested that he be reassigned to another instructor for the remainder of the semester because Dr. Smiley "is possessed with a racial hate towards" him. Id.
The following day, November 6, Dr. Palmer emailed plaintiff and informed him that Dr. Smiley had officially accused him of "plagiarism in [his] mid-term examination and in a writtenassignment for that class." Ex. E to Motion (ECF 66-6) (email). Dr. Palmer instructed plaintiff "to make an appearance before the Adjudication Committee of the Department of History and Geography to answer these charges." Id.
The meeting of the Adjudication Committee took place on or about November 12, 2008. Following the meeting, the Committee decided to assign plaintiff a grade of "F" for the exam. Opposition at 7. In a letter dated November 13, 2008, Ex. F to Motion (ECF 66-7), Dr. Palmer, as Chair of the Committee, informed plaintiff of the Committee's findings:
The Adjudication [C]ommittee of the department of History and Geography deliberated after our meeting yesterday and we have concluded that you should receive a grade of "F" for the mid-term examination. Your examination contains extensive paragraphs filled with specific data and identical words from the text and other published materials as well as the exact conventions from those written works which cannot be explained by coincidence. Because you failed to attribute the passages in your examinations to their authors and you submitted this material as if it were your own to obtain credit, faculty in this department think that you have violated university rules and should be subject to penalty.
Dr. Palmer's letter also instructed plaintiff that he could appeal the decision to the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts within 10 working days of the departmental decision. Id.
On November 13, 2008, plaintiff filed his appeal with the President of the University, instead of the Dean, because he believed the Dean to be racist. Mwabira-Simera Dep. at 11, 13. On January 13, 2008, Dr. Burney J. Hollis, the Dean of the College of Liberal Arts, sent a letter to plaintiff, informing plaintiff that he was unable to consider any appeal of the Adjudication Committee's ruling because plaintiff had been informed of his right to appeal to the Dean within 10 days but had failed to do so. See Ex. G to Motion (ECF 66-8) (letter from Dean).
Dr. T. Joan Robinson, the University's Provost and Vice President for Academic Affairs, met with plaintiff on March 3, 2009, concerning the Geography 309 course, and then wrote tohim that she could not consider his appeal because it had not been timely filed with the Dean, and therefore, the "[Adjudication] [C]ommittee's ruling stands." Ex. H to Motion (ECF 66-9) (letter from Provost). By letter dated March 19, 2009, the President of the University also wrote to plaintiff, stating that, because plaintiff had not filed his appeal with the appropriate Dean, the President could not consider his appeal. See Ex. I to Motion (ECF 66-10).
This suit followed. The Complaint (ECF 2) is divided into several rambling counts that are interspersed with citation to case law and statutory authorities. As best as can be discerned from a liberal construction of the Complaint, in Count I plaintiff asserts discrimination on the basis of race and national origin under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §§ 2000e et seq. Count II charges "Unlawful Retaliation," invoking Title VI and Title VII, as well as Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, codified at 20 U.S.C. §§ 1681 et seq., and the Equal Education Opportunity Act of 1974, 20 U.S.C. § 1703. In Count III, plaintiff alleges an "abusive, hostile academic and work environment" under Title VI, Title VII, Title IX, and the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), codified in various sections of 5 U.S.C. Count IV charges defendants with "stalking," in violation of Maryland criminal law. See Md. Code , § 3-802 of the Criminal Law Article ("C.L.") (formerly Article 27, § 124). Count V asserts violations of plaintiff's...
To continue reading
Request your trial