Faparusi v. Case Western Reserve University et al

Filing 17

Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation 12 denying 3 Motion for temporary restraining order and Motion for preliminary injunction. Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 11/10/2016. (R,D)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
EASTERN DIVISION

OLAOLUWA FAPARUSI,
Plaintiff,
vs.
CASE WESTERN RESERVE
UNIVERSITY, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:16CV1586
JUDGE CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
OPINION AND ORDER

CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO, J.:
This matter comes before the Court upon Magistrate Judge Baughman’s Report
and Recommendation (ECF #12), recommending that the Court deny Plaintiff’s Motion for
a Temporary Restraining Order (“TRO”) and Preliminary Injunction. (ECF #3). Plaintiff
has filed an Objection to Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation (ECF #13).
For the following reasons, the Court ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Baughman’s Report and
Recommendation and denies the Motion.
BACKGROUND
The Complaint and Motion for a TRO and Preliminary Injunction allege that
Plaintiff was suspended from Case Western Reserve University (“CWRU”) for using a

women’s restroom at a facility while pressed for time during the period he was studying
for an examination during his sophomore year on March 1, 2016. While in a restroom
stall, he was verbally confronted by two female students who accused Plaintiff of taking
pictures in the restroom. Following receipt of an incident report, CWRU began an
investigation and terminated his on-campus housing agreement. Plaintiff was found to be
liable on two charges of Sexual Exploitation and Disorderly Conduct. Plaintiff appealed
the decision within the University hearing process. His appeal was denied.
Plaintiff’s Motion argues that CWRU’s hearing and decision to suspend him were
done in violation of his rights under the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment. Plaintiff further alleges that CWRU and the individual employee defendants
breached CWRU’s contract with Plaintiff in the way the hearing was conducted. CWRU
has responded by filing a Motion to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim.
LAW AND ANALYSIS
In the Motion to Dismiss, all Defendants argue that Counts One, Two, Three and
Five should be dismissed because the Fourteenth Amendment’s due process and
fundamental fairness guarantees do not apply to the policies and procedures of private
colleges. Regarding Count Four, Defendants argue that in a breach of contract claim
against an educational institution, the Court must defer to the decision of the school
unless the school’s action is such a substantial departure from accepted academic norms
as to demonstrate a lack of professional judgment. Defendants further argue that Count
Four is a state law breach of contract claim and the Court should decline to exercise
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.
The Magistrate Judge determined that analogous to the issues here is Pierre v.
University of Dayton 29143 F.Supp.3d 703 (S.D. Ohio 2015). In Pierre, the district court
denied a motion for an injunction by noting that “a suspension from school is not
irreparable” because “after the suspension ends, [the plaintiff] will have the opportunity to

-2-

petition for reenrollment to the University.” The Magistrate Judge noted that the Sixth
Circuit has affirmed that courts will not interfere with a private university’s right to enforce
disciplinary standards without a showing of clear abuse of discretion and that a
university’s conduct during disciplinary proceedings is evaluated under the rubric of
“whether the proceedings fell within the range of reasonable expectations of one reading
the relevant rules, an objective reasonableness standard. ”The Pierre court concluded
that the plaintiff there had not shown a likelihood of success on the merits because “the
process promised him and provided to him was fundamentally fair.”
Plaintiff’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation do not challenge the
Magistrate Judge’s reliance on Pierre for his conclusions. Also, in Defendant’s Response
to Plaintiff’s Objections, they point out that this Court recently held in a factually similar
case against CWRU, that there is no private cause of action for failure to comply with Title
IX procedural requirements. Doe v. Case Western Reserve Univ., No. 1:14CV2044,
2015 WL 5522001, *4 (N.D. Ohio Sept. 16, 2015).
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that Plaintiff is not likely to succeed on
the merits of any of his claims, that his alleged injury is not irreparable, that the public
interest is served by allowing private universities to carry out their mission of providing a
safe environment for learning by enforcing reasonable disciplinary procedures and that
there is a risk that significant harm to other individuals may occur were Plaintiff
immediately returned to campus as a student.
CONCLUSION
The Court finds that the Magistrate Judge thoroughly reviewed Plaintiff’s claims
and correctly applied the pertinent law. Therefore, Plaintiff’s Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction is denied.

-3-

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATE: 11/10/16
s/Christopher A. Boyko
CHRISTOPHER A. BOYKO
United States District Judge

-4-