USCA1 Opinion
October 12, 1994 [NOT FOR PUBLICATION]
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIRST CIRCUIT
____________________
Nos. 93-2051
93-2234
94-1589
J. DOE,
Plaintiff, Appellant,
v.
HARVARD UNIVERSITY,
Defendant, Appellee.
____________________
APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS
[Hon. Edward F. Harrington, U.S. District Judge]
___________________
____________________
Before
Selya, Cyr and Stahl,
Circuit Judges.
______________
____________________
J. Doe on brief pro se.
______
Eileen M. Hagerty, Kern, Hagerty, Roach & Carpenter on brief for
_________________ _________________________________
appellee.
Margaret H. Marshall and Kathleen B. Rogers, Office of General
_____________________ ___________________
Counsel Harvard University, on brief for appellee.
____________________
____________________
Per Curiam. Appellant J. Doe, a student suspended from
__________
the Extension School of appellee Harvard University, filed a
complaint in June 1993 alleging that she had been
discriminated against by Harvard because of a learning
disability from which she suffers. Her complaint alleged
violations of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. 1983, the
Individuals with Disabilities Act [IDEA], 20 U.S.C. 1400-
1485, the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. 701-797b, and the
Americans with Disabilities Act [ADA], 42 U.S.C. 12101-
12213. She sought injunctive relief in the form of an order
compelling Harvard to reinstate her as a student and to
refrain from other alleged acts of discrimination. At the
same time, Doe also filed a motion for a preliminary
injunction seeking similar relief. The district court
dismissed the parts of the complaint predicated on the Civil
Rights Act and the IDEA and granted summary judgment to
Harvard on the remaining counts. The court also denied Doe's
request for a preliminary injunction. Later the district
court denied Doe's motion for reconsideration. Doe appeals
the dismissal of her case, the denial of her motion for
reconsideration and the denial of her request for a
preliminary injunction. She also appeals the refusal by the
district court judge to recuse himself. After having
reviewed carefully the record in this case, the parties'
briefs, and appellant's numerous filings, we affirm.
-3-
Doe's claims pursuant to Section 1983 of the Civil
Rights Act and those pursuant to the IDEA were both properly
dismissed. This court has previously held that Harvard "is
not a public institution, and is not sufficiently intertwined
with the Commonwealth of Massachusetts as to meet the 'state
action' requirement for a 1983 cause of action." Rice v.
____
President and Fellows of Harvard College, 663 F.2d 336, 337
__________________________________________
(1st Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 456 U.S. 928 (1982). The IDEA
____ ______
"provides federal money to assist state and local agencies in
________________________
educating handicapped children, and conditions such funding
________
upon a State's compliance with extensive goals and
_______
procedures." Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176, 179
__________________ ______
(1982) (emphasis added). The IDEA does not apply to adults
like Doe, see 20 U.S.C. 1412(2)(B) (children are those
___
between three and twenty-one years old), nor does it apply to
private institutions like Harvard, see. e.g., 20 U.S.C.
___ ___
1415(a) (IDEA seeks to guarantee "free appropriate public
education").
To prevail on a claim under either the Rehabilitation
Act or the ADA Doe must show, inter alia, that she has been
_____ ____
discriminated against because of her disability. See 29
___
U.S.C. 704(a) ("no otherwise qualified individual . . .
shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, . . . be
subjected to discrimination") (Rehabilitation Act); 42 U.S.C.
12112(a) ("[n]o covered entity shall discriminate against a
-4-
qualified individual with a disability because of the
disability of such individual") (ADA). In its motion for
summary judgment Harvard presented sworn affidavits, with
documentary support, which indicated that it had accommodated
Doe's disability to the full extent recommended by the only
psychologist Doe consulted on this matter. Harvard also
presented evidence that the other acts of alleged
discrimination were taken for legitimate, non-discriminatory
reasons.
In opposition to the motion for summary judgment, Doe
set forth no specific facts as required by Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(e), but only "'conclusory allegations, improbable
inferences, and unsupported speculation'" that she had been
the victim of discrimination. Pagano v. Frank, 983 F.2d 343,
______ _____
347 (1st Cir. 1993) (quoting Medina-Munoz v. Reynolds Tobacco
____________ ________________
Co., 896 F.2d 5, 8 (1st Cir. 1990)). This is not sufficient
__
to withstand a properly supported motion for summary
judgment. See also Wynne v. Tufts Univ. School of
___ ____ _____ ________________________
Medicine, 976 F.2d 791, 794 (1st Cir. 1992) ("evidence that
________
'is merely colorable or is not significantly probative'
cannot deter summary judgment") (quoting Anderson v. Liberty
________ _______
Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 249-50 (1986), cert. denied, 113
__________ ____ ______
S.Ct. 1845 (1993).
On appeal, Doe has also raised several other claims. We
need not address some of these because they were not
-5-
presented first to the district court. See, e.g., Kale v.
___ ___ ____
Combined Ins. Co., 861 F.2d 746, 755 (1st Cir. 1988). In any
_________________
event, none appears to have any merit.
The judgment of the district court dismissing
appellant's action is affirmed. The order of the court
________
denying appellant's request for a preliminary injunction is
affirmed. The denial of appellant's motion for
________
reconsideration is affirmed. The refusal by the district
________
court judge to recuse himself is affirmed. Appellant's
________
request for oral argument is denied. Appellant's request
______
that this court reconsider its denial of her request for
district court transcripts at court cost is denied.
______
-6-