James Davis NELSON, Jr. v. The UNIVERSITY OF ALABAMA SYSTEM, et al.
1900898
Supreme Court of Alabama
Jan. 10, 1992
594 So. 2d 633
The record reflects that James Davis Nelson, Jr., entered the University in the fall 1986 semester to pursue a course in nursing. Because of poor grades, he was placed on indefinite academic suspension at the end of the fall semester. However, the University waived his suspension and allowed him to enroll in nursing courses for the 1987 spring semester. He enrolled in two courses — Nursing 214, “Medication Calculations“; and Nursing 256, “Nursing Process.” At issue is his performance in Nursing 256, a course that requires the student to obtain a satisfactory evaluation in the clinical part of the course and to sit for the National League of Nursing Achievement Test. As a consequence of his poor academic performance during the spring semester, he was again placed upon indefinite academic suspension.
Following this suspension, Nelson complained to Dean Mobley and Associate Dean Awtrey that the reason for his failure was incompetence on the part of his professors. They advised him that he could file an academic grievance under the University academic grievance procedure. On September 14, 1987, Nelson met with Dean Mobley and gave her a written complaint in which he asked that the University fire two professors. However, Nelson did not submit a written academic grievance about his grades until December 9, 1987. The record reflects that a series of meetings and discovery procedures followed. During this period, Nelson made repeated demands for a delay in the grievance procedure. Nelson filed this action on April 26, 1989.
“This cause came to be heard on February 19, 1991, on plaintiff‘s motion for summary judgment and defendant‘s motion for summary judgment. After reviewing all evidence submitted and arguments and briefs of counsel, this court finds that although there are disputed facts, there is no evidence of disputed material facts. Defendants have presented substantial evidence rebutting plaintiff‘s claims, and the plaintiff has presented no substantial evidence in support of his claims of denial of due process, denial of equal protection (gender discrimination), and civil conspiracy. Therefore all defendants are entitled to a summary judgment as to all claims as a matter of law, and it is ordered that summary judgment be granted in favor of all defendants as to all of plaintiff‘s claims. In so ordering, this court is making no ruling as to the merits of plaintiff‘s grievances, which have been filed against various officials of the University of Alabama, since those matters are not before this court, and are not ripe for review by a Circuit Court. Those grievances are still pending, and the parties are encouraged to resolve those grievances promptly without further delay.
“Costs of this action are taxed to the plaintiff for which let execution issue.
“Ordered this 21st day of February, 1991.”
The issue before us is whether the trial court erred in entering the summary judgment for the defendants.
We have carefully examined the record in this case and conclude that the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed. The record in this case is lengthy, running to five volumes; yet there is much extraneous matter and the trial court correctly concluded that although there are disputed facts, there is no evidence of disputed material facts.
Nelson first contends that the defendants denied him due process and discriminated against him because of his gender. There is simply no evidence to substantiate this claim. In fact, the evidence reflects that Nelson himself requested that the academic grievance procedures be halted, and he now claims the halt to be a denial of due process to him.
Nelson further claims that the defendants conspired to deny him a hearing on his academic grievances. He presented no evidence to support this claim. A civil conspiracy requires a combination of two or more individuals to accomplish an unlawful purpose or to accomplish a lawful end by unlawful means. Barber v. Stephenson, 260 Ala. 151, 69 So.2d 251 (1953); Eidson v. Olin Corp., 527 So.2d 1283, 1285 (Ala. 1988). While it appears that Nelson‘s contention is that University officials conspired to shift his grievances among themselves and thus to deny him due process, the record reflects that any shifting of
On a motion for summary judgment, when the movant makes a prima facie showing that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that the movant is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law, as in the present case, the burden shifts to the nonmovant to show “substantial evidence” in support of his position. Bean v. Craig, 557 So.2d 1249, 1252 (Ala. 1990). The record reflects that, as to each claim, Nelson failed to produce substantial evidence to establish a genuine issue of material fact. A summary judgment motion is not defeated by conclusory allegations or speculation that fact issues exist, and bare argument or conjecture will not satisfy the nonmoving party‘s burden to offer facts to defeat the motion. Williams v. Palmer, 277 Ala. 188, 168 So.2d 220 (1964); Riggs v. Bell, 564 So.2d 882, 884 (Ala. 1990). Therefore, the judgment of the trial court is due to be affirmed.
AFFIRMED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and MADDOX, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.