Professional Documents
Culture Documents
No. 12-1724
GERALD JEANDRON,
Plaintiff Appellant,
v.
BOARD OF REGENTS OF THE UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND;
UNIVERSITY SYSTEM OF MARYLAND; UNIVERSITY OF MARYLAND;
WALLACE D. LOH, Ph.D., in his official capacity as
President of the University of Maryland, College Park;
SALLY S. SIMPSON, Ph.D., Individually, and in her official
capacity as Department Chair; RAYMOND PATERNOSTER, Ph.D.,
Individually,
and
in
his
capacity
as
Professor
of
Criminology and Criminal Justice,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
Maryland, at Greenbelt.
Roger W. Titus, District Judge.
(8:11-cv-02496-RWT)
Submitted:
Decided:
Elizabeth Combe,
Appellees.
Staff
Attorney,
Baltimore,
Maryland,
for
PER CURIAM:
Gerald Jeandron filed an action against the Board of
Regents of the University System of Maryland; the University of
Maryland
President
at
College
Loh
in
Park
his
(UMCP);
official
University
capacity;
of
Maryland
Sally
Simpson,
and
individual
capacity;
and
Raymond
Paternoster,
official
complaint:
capacity.
count
Disabilities
Jeandron
one,
Act
raised
violation
(ADA);
four
of
count
the
two,
counts
in
Americans
violation
his
with
of
the
was
is
blind
previously
and
is
accepted
disabled
into
the
under
the
graduate
ADA.
studies
The parties
purchase
and
provide
all
accommodations
to
assist
him
in
specified
to
that
Jeandron
was
still
3
subject
all
the
rules,
to
as
executing
pursue
his
Jeandrons
the
settlement
doctorate
at
agreement,
Dr.
advisor.
In
dissertation
UMCP.
Jeandron
Paternoster
July
2008,
Later, but
for
classes
because
the
University
had
placed
an
On September 7,
action
is
barred
by
three-year
statute
of
from
the
program.
On
December
18,
2007,
Dr.
that
his
progress
was
unsatisfactory
4
because
he
had
not
that
satisfactory
semester
and
he
and
had
not
timely
that,
if
met
the
progress
he
departments
for
continued
a
to
standards
second
for
consecutive
perform
below
the
January
8,
2008,
Dr.
Gottfredson
sent
another
The
Lillian
Jeandron
opposed the motion and contended that he did not receive any of
the letters from the University from December 2007 forward.
He
The court
heard from counsel and considered the motion and response and
the materials, including Jeandrons affidavit claiming not to
have received notice of termination until September 8, 2008.
The district court concluded that all the claims were barred by
the statute of limitations.
letter
of
informing
Jeandron
his
termination
was
sent
by
certified mail and that the return receipt was signed for by a
person
identified
as
Lillian
Bradley,
and
that
there
was
no
that the notices were given in the ordinary manner and that
there is no requirement to prove actual receipt.
Fed.
R.
Civ.
P.
12(b)(6)
motion
to
dismiss.
Philips v. Pitt Cnty. Meml Hosp., 572 F.3d 176, 179-80 (4th
Cir. 2009).
Inc.,
211
F.3d
846,
850
(4th
Cir.
2000).
Summary
Fed. R. Civ. P.
56(a).
unless
[T]here
is
no
issue
for
trial
there
is
proper.
Anderson
v.
Liberty
Lobby,
Inc.,
477
U.S.
242,
ADA
and
statute of limitations.
Rehabilitation
Act
do
not
provide
v. Virginia, 655 F.3d 342, 347 (4th Cir. 2011), cert. denied,
132 S. Ct. 1960 (2012).
The remaining
counts
the
of
Jeandrons
complaint
fall
under
Maryland
well.
See Md. Cts. & Jud. Proc. Code Ann. 5-101; Hartnett v.
v.
Dhanda,
43
A.3d
1029,
103334
(2012)
(applying
the
Virginia
The
Gas
unlawful
Co.,
135
practice
F.3d
occurs
307,
when
Martin v.
310
the
(4th
Cir.
plaintiff
is
For
statute
of
limitations
begins
to
run
when
the
allegedly
knew
Pennwalt
or
Corp.
reasonably
v.
should
Nasios,
have
550
A.2d
known
1155,
of
the
1160
wrong.
(Md.
1988)
the
discovery
rule
to
all
tort
claims)).
Actual
was
discovered
within
the
meaning
of
the
rule.
notice
arises
when
plaintiff
gains
knowledge
is
Gottfredsons
Jeandrons
undisputed
letter
of
address.
that,
January
Further,
at
8,
the
2008,
Jeandron
very
least,
Dr.
was
received
at
should
have
been
on
even
requirement
though
of
he
was
continuous
on
notice
progress
of
and
He did not
the
Universitys
registration
in
Accordingly, the
the
Spring
2008
semester
and
that
reasonable
appeal,
Jeandron
assigns
error
to
the
district
the
materials
it
considered
in
its
order.
The court
At
the
court
may
take
judicial
notice
of
information
publicly
Northrop Grumman Corp., 499 F.3d 1218, 1225 (10th Cir. 2007)
(holding that it is not uncommon for courts to take judicial
notice of factual information found on the world wide web).
Jeandron did not lodge an objection at the hearing to
the courts consideration of the University policy found on the
Universitys
web
site,
except
to
say
whether
the
University
considered
by
the
The
agreement.
the
noted
district
in
the
progress
is
information
specifically
satisfactory
requirement
factual
also
court.
court
settlement
relied
upon.
abuse
of
discretion,
the
district
court
did
not
err
in
F.3d 407, 413 (4th Cir. 2002) (the district courts admission of
evidence must be reviewed with broad deference); United States
v. Aramony, 88 F.3d 1369, 1377 (4th Cir. 1996) (the district
court's
decision
to
admit
evidence
will
be
overturned
only
reliance
also
on
the
raises
judicial
continuous
11
bias
related
registration
to
the
requirement.
letters.
Jeandron
contends
that
the
court
[J]udicial
The
continuous
registration
requirement
was
properly
source,
Jeandron
has
not
established
that
the
Liteky, 510
U.S. at 556.
Lastly, Jeandron argues that the court erred in ruling
under either Rule 12(b)(6) or Rule 56 that he had receipt of the
12
court accepted as true his claims under Rule 12(b)(6), the court
should have found that his claim was timely filed.
Under Rule
of
the
2007
and
judgment is improper.
is
not
sufficient
to
2008
letters,
and
therefore
summary
summary
judgment.
See
Natl
Enterprises, Inc. v. Barnes, 201 F.3d 331, 335 (4th Cir. 2000).
We conclude, however, that the courts decision may be affirmed
on the basis of reasonable inquiry alone, and therefore, even
had there been a factual dispute as to actual receipt of the
letters of termination from the graduate program, it did not
affect the statute of limitations issue.
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and
legal
before
contentions
the
court
are
adequately
and
argument
presented
would
not
in
aid
the
the
materials
decisional
process.
AFFIRMED
13