Doe v. The University of Alabama in Huntsville et al

Filing 33

MEMORANDUM OPINION - To the extent that Ms. Doe has attempted to frame an Equal Protection claim in Count II pursuant to §1983, the Court dismisses that claim without prejudice because Count II as pleaded fails to adequately apprise the Court an d the defendants of the nature of Ms. Does claim. The Court adopts the magistrate judges report and accepts his recommendation with respect to Count III of the amended complaint. The Court will enter a separate order consistent with this opinion. Signed by Judge Madeline Hughes Haikala on 3/23/2017. (KEK)

FILED
2017 Mar-23 PM 01:43
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

JANE DOE,
Plaintiff
vs.
THE UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA
IN HUNTSVILLE, et al.,
Defendants

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 5:14-cv-02029-HGD

MEMORANDUM OPINION
On November 4, 2016, the magistrate judge entered a report in which he
recommended that the Court grant the defendants’ motion to dismiss Counts II and III of
Ms. Doe’s amended complaint. (Doc. 32, p. 19).

The magistrate judge advised

parties of their right to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days.
32, p. 19).

the
(Doc.

No party has filed objections to the magistrate judge’s report and

recommendation.
A district court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). A district
court reviews legal conclusions in a report de novo and reviews for plain error factual
findings to which no objection is made. Garvey v. Vaughn, 993 F.2d 776, 779 n. 9 (11th
Page 1 of 3

Cir. 1993); see also LoConte v. Dugger, 847 F.2d 745, 749 (11th Cir. 1988); Macort
v. Prem, Inc., 208 Fed. Appx. 781, 784 (11th Cir. 2006).1
Having reviewed Ms. Doe’s amended complaint, the defendants’ motion to
dismiss, and the report and recommendation, the Court agrees that Count II of the
amended complaint should be dismissed with prejudice to the extent that Ms. Doe
attempts to frame a substantive due process claim; however, the Court does not believe
Count II is so limited. Ms. Doe alleges that the defendants’ purported failure to properly
investigate the sexual assault against her and the University’s purported inadequate
policies concerning the training and supervision of University employees in matters
pertaining to student safety and the investigation of criminal conduct that impacts student
safety give rise to an Equal Protection violation because these alleged failures “result[]
in disparate treatment of female students, and had a disparate impact on female students,
as [female students] are statistically much more likely to be the victim[s] of sexual
violence.”

(Doc 25, pages 12–13).

Claims regarding disparate treatment of and

disparate impact upon a protected class generally fall under the umbrella of the Equal
Protection clause.

To the extent that Ms. Doe has attempted to frame an Equal

Protection claim in Count II pursuant to §1983, the Court dismisses that claim without
prejudice because Count II as pleaded fails to adequately apprise the Court and the
1

When a party objects to a report, a district court must “make a de novo determination of those portions
of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28
U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(B)-(C).
Page 2 of 3

defendants of the nature of Ms. Doe’s claim. The Court adopts the magistrate judge’s
report and accepts his recommendation with respect to Count III of the amended
complaint. The Court will enter a separate order consistent with this opinion.
DONE this 23rd day of March, 2017.

MADELINE HUGHES HAIKALA
U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Page 3 of 3