Osei v. Univ. of Md. Univ. Coll.

202 F.Supp.3d 471

Michael OSEI

v.UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, et al.

Civil Action No. DKC 15-2502

United States District Court, D. Maryland.

Filed August 15, 2016

Michael Osei, Philadelphia, PA, pro se.

Corlie McCormick, Jr., Maryland Office of the Attorney General, Baltimore, MD, for University of Maryland University College, et al.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

DEBORAH K. CHASANOW, United States District Judge

Presently pending and ready for resolution in this civil rights action are: (1) motions to dismiss filed by Defendants University of Maryland University College ("UMUC"), the Office of Financial Aid at UMUC (the "Financial Aid Office"), Javier Miyares, Julie Lindenmeier, Clairbourne Patty, Terrence Cooper, and Lynette O'Leary (collectively, the "Defendants") (ECF Nos. 26; 27);¹ (2) a motion filed by Plaintiff Michael Osei ("Plaintiff") to set a rule upon Defendants to serve court documents upon Plaintiff by both e-mail and postal mail (ECF No. 33); (3) Plaintiff's motion in limine to preclude references to other cases Plaintiff brought against universities and educational entities and for leave to file terminating sanctions against Defendants (ECF No. 35); and (4) Plaintiff's motion for leave to file a surreply (ECF No. 36). The issues have been briefed, and the court now rules, no hearing being deemed necessary. Local Rule 105.6. For the following reasons, Defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint will be granted. Plaintiff's remaining motions will be denied.

I. Background²

Plaintiff is originally from Ghana and immigrated to the United States to pursue educational opportunities. (ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 11-14). In the fall of 2014, UMUC accepted Plaintiff's application for admission "to pursue courses toward [ ] a degree for Master of Science in Biotechnology with [a] specialty in Bioinformatics ... which is mostly an online program." (Id. ¶ 15). Plaintiff enrolled in graduate-level classes in the Fall 2014 semester and received federal student financial aid.³ He also enrolled in two graduate-level courses in the Spring 2015 semester and received federal student aid. (Id. ¶ 17).

During the spring months, Plaintiff apparently requested additional financial aid. On March 12, 2015, Plaintiff e-mailed officials at the United States Department of Education inviting them to "immediately intervene in a financial aid matter ongoing with the Financial Aid Department of [UMUC] that will cause irreparable damages to his right to his continued educational interests and undue financial burdens." (ECF No. 1-1, at 7 (emphasis in original)).⁴ In a subsequent March 23 e-mail to UMUC employees and Department of Education officials, Plaintiff explained his complaint:

Budget increase is what I requested for the Spring 2015 semester [ ]. Instead, Mr. Stever of UMUC moved my not-as-of yet [S]ummer 2015 refund to [S]pring 2015, According to Ms. Lindenmeier, such movement of funds from [S]ummer 2015 to Spring 2015 is not right since ‘[S]ummer 2015 is not yet here.’ I agree. The record shows that I did not initially ask for movement of my summer aid but a budget increase which is what is right if student-lender needs additional funds.

(Id. at 11). On April 1, Plaintiff submitted a budget increase request for additional federal student financial aid due to extenuating circumstances. Ms. Lindenmeier informed Plaintiff by e-mail that decisions on such requests are given typically ten days after the Financial Aid Office receives the student's completed appeal. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 20).

On April 20, Plaintiff e-mailed Ms. Lindenmeier: "To reduce my own high educational costs and time, I hereby cancel my budget increase request entirely and withdraw my appeal. Hence, you can now disregard my appeal and cancel it." (ECF No. 1-1, at 1 (emphasis in original); see ECF No. 1 ¶ 21). Ms. Lindenmeier sent to the UMUC Office of the Registrar a memo dated April 21:

Please accept this notice of violation of the Code of Student Conduct, UMUC Policy 151.00. We submit that [Plaintiff] violated UMUC Policy 151.00 Section III.N.

While a student of UMUC, [Plaintiff] submitted documentation from the City of Philadelphia and Plick and Associates, Forensic Engineers to be used to increase his cost of attendance and request additional federal aid. We confirmed that the information was not [Plaintiff's] and the documentation [ ] was forged.

For the reasons set forth above, [Plaintiff] has violated the Code of Student Conduct 151.00 Section[ ] III.N. We request that this situation is reviewed and a decision is made if the student can continue to study with UMUC. Given the severe nature of the student's behavior and the ongoing risk to UMUC, I recommend the sanction of expulsion.

(ECF No. 1-1, at 3; see ECF No. 1 ¶ 23). Subsequently, on May 14, Mr. Patty in the Office of the Registrar wrote to advise Plaintiff that he would be charged with a student conduct violation for submitting false documentation to the Financial Aid Office related to his request for additional financial assistance. (See ECF Nos. 1-1, at 2; 1 ¶ 22). Upon receipt of Mr. Patty's notice, Plaintiff sent an e-mail on May 15 requesting that UMUC "dismiss and/or withdraw [the] code violation [charge] as MOOT given... that [Plaintiff] voluntarily cancelled or withdrew his request for not-yet-decided funds." (ECF No. 1-1, at 4; see ECF No. 1 ¶ 24). According to Plaintiff, he sent additional e-mails requesting that UMUC dismiss or withdraw the disciplinary action. (See ECF No. 1 ¶¶ 25-27).

According to Plaintiff, UMUC informed him that a disciplinary hearing was scheduled on July 28 to resolve the student conduct charge against him. (Id. ¶ 30). On July 21, Plaintiff e-mailed Dr. Marie Cini, the Provost of UMUC, regarding the student conduct charge against him in order "to ensure that he [ ] exhausted internal remedies ... before proceeding to federal court." (Id. ¶ 33). On the same day, Plaintiff alleges, Mr. Patty informed him that the hearing remained scheduled for July 28. Furthermore, he informed Plaintiff that Ms. Lindenmeier was no longer employed at UMUC, and that Ms. O'Leary would serve in her place. (Id. ¶ 34). Defendants assert, and Plaintiff does not challenge, that Plaintiff did not participate in the July 28 hearing. Plaintiff was expelled from UMUC for his student conduct violations in August 2015. (ECF No. 26-1, at 3).

Plaintiff, proceeding pro se , filed the complaint in the United States District Court for the District of New Jersey on July 28, 2015. (ECF No. 1). Plaintiff seeks money damages and injunctive relief. Several weeks later, the action was transferred to this court. (ECF Nos. 16; 17). Plaintiff moved for emergency injunctive relief on September 2 (ECF No. 24), which the court denied (ECF No. 25). Shortly thereafter, Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (ECF Nos. 26; 27). Plaintiff was provided with a Roseboro notice, which advised him of the pendency of the motion to dismiss and his entitlement to respond within 17 days. (ECF Nos. 28; 29); see Roseboro v. Garrison , 528 F.2d 309, 310 (4^th Cir.1975) (holding that pro se plaintiffs should be advised of their right to file responsive material to a motion for summary judgment). Plaintiff responded in opposition, and Defendants replied. (ECF Nos. 30; 34). Plaintiff also moved to set a rule upon Defendants to serve court documents upon Plaintiff by both e-mail and postal mail. (ECF No. 33). In addition, he moved in limine to preclude references to other cases Plaintiff brought against universities and educational entities and for leave to file terminating sanctions against Defendants. (ECF No. 35).⁵ Finally, he moved for leave to file a surreply. (ECF No. 36).⁶

II. Standard of Review

The purpose of a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) is to test the sufficiency of the complaint. Presley v. City O f Charlottesville, 464 F.3d 480, 483 (4^th Cir.2006). A complaint need only satisfy the standard of Rule 8(a), which requires a "short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2). " Rule 8(a)(2) still requires a ‘showing,’ rather than a blanket assertion, of entitlement to relief." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555 n. 3, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). That showing must consist of more than "a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action" or "naked assertion[s] devoid of further factual enhancement." Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (citations omitted).

At this stage, all well-pleaded allegations in a complaint must be considered as true, Albright v. Oliver , 510 U.S. 266, 268, 114 S.Ct. 807, 127 L.Ed.2d 114 (1994), and all factual allegations must be construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff. See Harrison v. Westinghouse Savannah River Co. , 176 F.3d 776, 783 (4^th Cir.1999) (citing Mylan Labs., Inc. v. Matkari , 7 F.3d 1130, 1134 (4^th Cir.1993) ); Brockington v. Boykins , 637 F.3d 503, 505–06 (4^th Cir.2011). In evaluating the complaint, unsupported legal allegations need not be accepted. Revene v. Charles Cnty. Comm'rs , 882 F.2d 870, 873 (4^th Cir.1989). Legal conclusions couched as factual allegations are insufficient, Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, as are conclusory factual allegations devoid of any reference to actual events. United Black Firefighters v. Hirst , 604 F.2d 844, 847 (4^th Cir.1979) ; see also Francis v. Giacomelli , 588 F.3d 186, 192 (4^th Cir.2009). "[W]here the well-pleaded facts do not permit the court to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct, the complaint has alleged, but it has not ‘show[n] that the pleader is entitled to relief.’ " Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2) ). Thus, "[d]etermining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief will ... be a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id.

Generally, pro se...