eLaws | Code of Federal Regulations | United States Code |
 All Courts
 Federal Courts
 US Court of Appeals Cases
 Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
 2023-08

Ezeani v. Reagan ( 2023 )


Menu:
 
  • Case: 23-10445         Document: 00516850783             Page: 1      Date Filed: 08/08/2023
United States Court of Appeals
for the Fifth Circuit
____________
United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
Summary Calendar
No. 23-10445                                    FILED
____________                                 August 8, 2023
Lyle W. Cayce
Gregory Ifesinachi Ezeani,                                                          Clerk
Plaintiff—Appellant,
versus
Melinda H. Reagan, President of Amberton University,
Defendant—Appellee.
______________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:22-CV-2015
______________________________
Before Stewart, Dennis, and Willett, Circuit Judges.
Per Curiam: *
Plaintiff-Appellant Gregory Ifesinachi Ezeani, proceeding pro se,
appeals the district court’s dismissal of his suit against Defendant-Appellee
Melinda Reagan, the president of Amberton University, for violations of the
Fifth, Eighth, and Fourteenth Amendments in refusing to award him a
second graduate degree. After obtaining a Master of Science degree in Agile
_____________________
*
This opinion is not designated for publication. See 5th Cir. R. 47.5.
Case: 23-10445      Document: 00516850783           Page: 2    Date Filed: 08/08/2023
No. 23-10445
Project Management (APM), Ezeani attempted to apply APM degree credits
toward a second degree, but Amberton University did not award Ezeani the
second degree, maintaining he did not satisfy the requirements. The district
judge referred the case to a magistrate judge, who, construing Ezeani’s claims
as brought under
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , recommended dismissing the suit for
failing to allege Reagan, as president of a private university, acted under color
of state law as required by § 1983. Ezeani filed objections, and the district
judge overruled the objections; adopted the findings, conclusions, and
recommendations of the magistrate judge; and dismissed the case.
We review a district court’s ruling on a motion to dismiss for failure
to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) de novo and
must determine whether the pleaded facts state plausible claims that are
cognizable in law. NiGen Biotech, L.L.C. v. Paxton,
    804 F.3d 389
    , 393 (5th
Cir. 2015) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
    550 U.S. 544
    , 570 (2007)). While
“pro se complaints are held to less stringent standards” than those drafted
by a lawyer, “conclusory allegations or legal conclusions masquerading as
factual conclusions will not suffice to prevent a motion to dismiss.” Taylor v.
Books A Million, Inc.,
    296 F.3d 376
    , 378 (5th Cir. 2002) (first quoting Miller
v. Stanmore,
    636 F.2d 986
    , 988 (5th Cir. 1981); and then quoting S. Christian
Leadership Conf. v. Sup. Ct. of the State of La.,
    252 F.3d 781
    , 786 (5th Cir.
2001)).
As an initial matter, Ezeani argues this matter was improperly referred
to a magistrate judge without his consent. Referral of a motion to dismiss for
failure to state a claim is made under
    28 U.S.C. § 636
    (b)(1)(B), and consent
of the parties is not required under this subsection. Newsome v. E.E.O.C.,
    301 F.3d 227
    , 231 (5th Cir. 2002).
Turning to the merits, § 1983 imposes liability only on those who
interfere with federal rights while acting under color of state law, meaning
2
Case: 23-10445      Document: 00516850783          Page: 3   Date Filed: 08/08/2023
No. 23-10445
their allegedly wrong action is “fairly attributable to the State.” Rendell-
Baker v. Kohn,
    457 U.S. 830
    , 838 (1982) (quoting Lugar v. Edmondson Oil Co.,
    457 U.S. 922
    , 937 (1982)). On appeal, Ezeani argues Reagan acted under
color of state law, even though she is president of a private university,
because education is a traditional public function and Texas licensed
Amberton University to operate as a private university. However, the
Supreme Court has rejected similar arguments, holding a private high school
did not act under color of state law simply by participating in the field of
education because education is not “traditionally the exclusive prerogative of
the State.”
    Id. at 842
     (quoting Jackson v. Metro. Edison Co.,
    419 U.S. 345
    , 353
(1974)). The Court also held the fact that the private school was subject to
state regulations did not make the school a state actor because the challenged
action was “not compelled or even influenced by any state regulation.”
    Id.
    Ezeani’s arguments fail for the same reasons here.
AFFIRMED.
3