United States District Court, D. New Jersey
For PAULO SERODIO, Plaintiff: ALEXANDRA GARCIA, LEAD ATTORNEY, GARCIA HOBBS LAW, LLC, NEWARK, NJ.
For UNIVERSITY OF MEDICINE AND DENTISTRY OF NEW JERSEY, ROBERT L. JOHNSON, MD, I. THOMAS COHEN, MD, KATHY ANN DUNCAN, MD, LINDA BOYD, DO, JULIE FERGUSON, MBA, CATHERINE M. BOLDER, LISA POMPEO, MD, DENISE V. RODGERS, MD, MARJORIE C. BRANDRISS, PHD, Defendants: WILLIAM F. MADERER, LEAD ATTORNEY, RINA G. TAMBURRO, SAIBER LLC, FLORHAM PARK, NJ.
STANLEY R. CHESLER, United States District Judge.
This matter comes before the Court upon the motion for summary judgment filed bye Defendant Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey (f/k/a University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey (" UMNDJ" )) and the various individual Defendants, who are affiliated with UMDNJ. Plaintiff Paulo Serodio (" Plaintiff' or " Serodio" ) has opposed the motion. The Court has considered the papers filed by the parties. It rules based on the written submissions and without oral argument, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78. For the reasons expressed below, the motion for summary judgment will be granted in its entirety.
This action arises out of Plaintiff's suspension from UMDNJ's medical school, in which he was enrolled as a student at all relevant times. Disciplinary proceedings were initiated against Serodio in January 2007. In April 2007, following a hearing in which he participated, Serodio was found to have violated the school's policies on
proper use of its electronic information systems and its code of professional conduct. The disciplinary committee imposed a one-year suspension. Serodio appealed the decision, but it was affirmed in June 2007. After he was reinstated, Serodio experienced significant academic failures, resulting in his ultimate dismissal from the school in 2011.
Serodio filed this lawsuit in 2009 alleging that the disciplinary actions taken against him by UMDNJ and the other Defendants constituted retaliation for his exercise of First Amendment rights to free speech and discrimination on the basis of his race and national origin. Serodio is a white man who was born in Mozambique and therefore describes himself as a " white African American." He claims that UMDNJ's allegedly wrongful conduct stems from comments he made during class discussions in which he identified himself as a white African American and the similarly-themed essay he published in the school newspaper, The Plexus, in December 2006. The record also contains evidence that, in January 2007, Serodio posted lecture summaries known as " scribe notes" on the school's intranet system, for the purpose of sharing the notes with classmates, and that the notes contained inflammatory comments as well as lewd and inappropriate material. The Court's October 1, 2013 Opinion granting Defendants' motion for partial summary judgment narrates in more detail the facts relevant to both the claims and defenses, and the Court incorporates that Opinion's factual background section by reference.
In the October 1, 2013 Opinion and Order, the Court held that as a matter of law, Plaintiff could not establish his claims insofar as the alleged retaliatory and discriminatory conduct consisted of his dismissal from the medical school in 2011. Defendants had moved for partial summary judgment, seeking an order limiting the claims in the case to any nominal damage Serodio may have sustained as a result of the one-year suspension imposed in 2007. The Court found that the evidence demonstrated that Plaintiff's inadequate academic performance resulted in his dismissal and therefore no reasonable juror could find a causal link between Serodio's allegations of wrongdoing by Defendants and the alleged harm inflicted by the dismissal. (See d.e. 82 at 9-11.) Now, Defendants have moved for summary judgment on the entirety of the Amended Complaint, arguing that as to the pared-down action arising out of the allegedly retaliatory and discriminatory suspension, there is no genuine issue of fact a jury could resolve in Plaintiff's favor.
II. Legal Standard for Summary Judgment
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(a) provides that a " court shall grant summary judgment if the movant shows that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law." Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23, 106 S.Ct. 2548, 91 L.Ed.2d 265 (1986) (construing the similarly worded Rule 56(c), predecessor to the current summary judgment standard set forth in Rule 56(a)). A factual dispute is genuine if a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the non-movant, and it is material if, under the substantive law, it would affect the outcome of the suit. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248, 106 S.Ct. 2505, 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986). In considering a motion for summary judgment, a district court " must view the evidence 'in the light most favorable to the opposing party.'" Tolan v. Cotton, 134 S.Ct. 1861, 1866, 188 L.Ed.2d 895 (2014) (quoting Adickes v. S.H. Kress & Co.,
398 U.S. 144, 157,
90 S.Ct. 1598, 26 L.Ed.2d 142 (1970)). It may not make credibility determinations or engage in any weighing of the evidence.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 255.
" When the moving party has the burden of proof at trial, that party must show affirmatively the absence of a genuine issue of material fact: it must show that, on all the essential elements of its case on which it bears the burden of proof at trial, no reasonable jury could find for the non-moving party." In re Bressman, 327 F.3d 229, 238 (3d Cir. 2003) (quoting United States v. Four Parcels of Real Property, 941 F.2d 1428, 1438 (11th Cir. 1991)). " [W]ith respect to an issue on which the nonmoving party bears the burden of proof . . . the burden on the moving party may be discharged by 'showing'- that is, pointing out to the district court - that there is an absence of evidence to support the nonmoving party's case."
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 325.
Once the moving party has satisfied its initial burden, the party opposing the motion must establish the existence of a genuine issue as to a material fact.
Jersey Cent. Power & Light Co. v. Lacey Twp., 772 F.2d 1103, 1109 (3d Cir. 1985). " A nonmoving party has created a genuine issue of material fact if it has provided sufficient evidence to allow a jury to find in its favor at trial." Gleason v. Norwest Mortg., Inc., 243 F.3d 130, 138 (3d Cir. 2001). However, the party opposing the motion for summary judgment cannot rest on mere allegations; instead, it must present actual evidence that creates a genuine issue as to a material fact for trial.
Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248; see also Schoch v. First Fid. Bancorporation, 912 F.2d 654, 657 (3d Cir. 1990) (holding that " unsupported allegations in [a] memorandum and pleadings are insufficient to repel summary judgment." ).
The multi-count Amended Complaint pleads for relief under a number of federal civil rights statutes and parallel state law claims. The claims can be grouped into three categories: the retaliation claims, the discrimination claims and the hostile ...