-
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT PATRICIO PEREZ, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. No. 99-1745 THE UNIVERSITY OF CHARLESTON, Defendant-Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (CA-98-2055-2-11) Submitted: October 8, 1999 Decided: November 9, 1999 Before WILLIAMS and KING, Circuit Judges, and BUTZNER, Senior Circuit Judge. _________________________________________________________________ Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. _________________________________________________________________ COUNSEL Dale L. DuTremble, Charleston, South Carolina; Derk B. K. Van Raalte, IV, North Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellant. John K. Blincow, Jr., Joseph C. Wilson, IV, W. Mullins McLeod, Jr., HOOD LAW FIRM, L.L.C., Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c). _________________________________________________________________ OPINION PER CURIAM: Patricio Perez appeals the district court's judgment granting sum- mary judgment to the University of Charleston (the"University") and dismissing his civil rights complaint. Perez claimed that the Univer- sity denied him the right to due process under the Fourteenth Amend- ment by not providing him a pre-deprivation hearing before he was assigned a grade of "F" for three courses and denied access to his transcript for failing to pay tuition. Perez also claimed that the post- deprivation process was not meaningful because it took two years until he received the relief he sought. Finding no reversible error, we affirm. We review a district court's decision to grant summary judgment de novo. See Higgins v. E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co.,
863 F.2d 1162, 1167 (4th Cir. 1988). Summary judgment is appropriate only "if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admis- sions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett,
477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). Under the Fourteenth Amendment, no State "shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Assuming without deciding that Perez had a property interest in his grades and the transcript, see Regents of Univ. of Mich. v. Ewing,
474 U.S. 214, 222-23 (1985); Board of Curators of Univ. of Mo. v. Horowitz,
435 U.S. 78, 84-85 (1978), we find that he received notice before assignment of the grades that he must officially withdraw from classes he did not expect to attend. Clearly, he was provided with a meaningful opportunity to notify the University that he was withdrawing from classes. We also find that he was provided with adequate post-deprivation opportunities to have his grades changed and to have access to his 2 transcript. See Lane Hollow Coal Co. v. DOWCP ,
137 F.3d 799, 806 (4th Cir. 1998). There is nothing in the record to indicate that his ini- tial appeals to his professors and to the Dean of Graduate Studies were not carefully and deliberately reviewed. See Horowitz,
435 U.S. at 85. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the district court. We dis- pense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3
Document Info
Docket Number: 99-1745
Filed Date: 11/9/1999
Precedential Status: Non-Precedential
Modified Date: 10/30/2014