MacKean Maisha v. University of North Carolina
641 F. App'x 246
4th Cir.2016Background
- Plaintiff Mackean P. Nyangweso Maisha, a UNC graduate student, sued UNC and several university employees under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VI, and state tort theories arising from alleged plagiarism, denial of enrollment in a dissertation course (BIOS 994), and related conduct; UNC counterclaimed for money had and received.
- The district court dismissed multiple defendants and claims under Rule 12(b)(6), struck portions of Maisha’s summary-judgment declarations, granted summary judgment for UNC and for individual defendants on remaining claims, and awarded UNC summary judgment on its counterclaim.
- On appeal Maisha argued (1) statute-of-limitations errors via the continuing-violation doctrine for certain § 1983 and Title VI claims, (2) insufficient dismissal of other § 1983 and conversion claims, (3) erroneous evidentiary strikes, (4) erroneous summary judgment on Title VI discrimination and retaliation, emotional-distress torts, and UNC’s counterclaim.
- The Fourth Circuit reviewed dismissals de novo and district evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion; summary judgment review applied the usual Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 standards.
- The court affirmed: statute-of-limitations bars applied because alleged discrete acts were not continuing violations; conversion claims were preempted by federal copyright law; summary judgment and evidentiary rulings were proper; UNC entitled to restitution on its counterclaim for refunded student funds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness under continuing-violation doctrine for § 1983 and Title VI claims | Maisha argued discrete acts were part of a continuing practice so claims remain timely | Defendants contended each event was a discrete act and limitations ran from each act | Held: Affirmed dismissal — acts were discrete; general pattern-or-practice allegations insufficient to invoke continuing-violation tolling |
| Sufficiency of § 1983 claims against certain defendants (Hargrove, Gage, Li, Hussey, Wolberg) | Maisha argued these defendants violated constitutional rights | Defendants argued complaint lacked facts showing constitutional violations by them | Held: Affirmed dismissal — complaint failed to plausibly allege constitutional violations by these defendants |
| Conversion claim based on plagiarism | Maisha contended defendants wrongfully retained intellectual property / attributable work | Defendants argued claims were preempted by federal copyright law | Held: Affirmed dismissal — plagiarism/attribution claims preempted; no extra element of retention of a tangible object pleaded |
| Title VI discrimination and retaliation; eligibility/unenrollment | Maisha argued discriminatory denial of enrollment and retaliation (complaint to OCR) caused adverse actions | UNC explained an informal qualifying-exam requirement; Maisha failed to take it, was ineligible for BIOS 994 and was unenrolled; timing undermined retaliation causation | Held: Affirmed summary judgment for UNC — Maisha failed prima facie Title VI discrimination and failed to show causation for retaliation (insufficient temporal proximity) |
| Emotional-distress claims against Fine and Hudgens | Maisha claimed negligent and intentional infliction of severe emotional distress | Defendants argued Maisha produced no real evidence of severe emotional distress (no medical treatment or adequate evidence) | Held: Affirmed summary judgment — Maisha failed to forecast sufficient evidence of severe emotional distress |
| UNC counterclaim (money had and received / unjust enrichment) | Maisha likely argued funds were not due back to UNC | UNC argued it refunded student loans when Maisha failed to enroll per loan agreement, entitling UNC to restitution | Held: Affirmed summary judgment for UNC — unjust enrichment established; refund not gratuitous |
Key Cases Cited
- Kensington Volunteer Fire Dep’t v. Montgomery Cty., 684 F.3d 462 (4th Cir. 2012) (standard for Rule 12(b)(6) review)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints)
- A Soc’y Without a Name v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342 (4th Cir. 2011) (continuing-violation doctrine explained)
- Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423 (4th Cir. 2004) (pattern-or-practice allegations insufficient to establish continuing violation)
- United States ex rel. Berge v. Bd. of Trs. of the Univ. of Ala., 104 F.3d 1453 (4th Cir. 1997) (copyright preemption of conversion claims; extra-element rule)
- Merritt v. Old Dominion Freight Line, Inc., 601 F.3d 289 (4th Cir. 2010) (informal policy can constitute a policy)
- McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) (framework for proving discrimination claims)
- Thompson v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 312 F.3d 645 (4th Cir. 2002) (summary-judgment evidentiary standards)