IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

No. 01-30375 Summary Calendar

VIOLA MOORE,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

versus

LOUISIANA STATE UNIVERSITY AND AGRICULTURAL AND MECHANICAL COLLEGE; CARVILLE EARLE; KENT MATHEWSON; WILLIAM DAVIDSON; RICHARD KESSEL,

Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Louisiana (00-CV-125) - - - - - - - - - - November 2, 2001

Before HIGGINBOTHAM, WIENER, and BARKSDALE, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:*

Plaintiff-Appellant Viola Moore appeals from the district

court’s grant of summary judgment dismissing her

complaint against the individual Defendants-Appellees, who are

university professors. Moore claims that her substantive due

process rights were violated when the professors rejected her

thesis proposal which, she contends, resulted in her de facto

dismissal from the university’s Ph.D. program. She also claims

* Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4. that she was deprived of a liberty interest —— pursuing her chosen

course of study —— without due process of law.

Federal courts are not “suited to evaluate the substance of

the multitude of academic decisions that are made daily by faculty

members of public educational institutions -- decisions that

require `an expert evaluation of cumulative information and [are]

not readily adapted to the procedural tools of judicial or

administrative decision-making.’” Regents of Univ. of Michigan v.

Ewing,

(1985) (citation omitted). “Courts must

accept, as consistent with due process, ‘an academic decision that

is not beyond the pale of reasoned academic decision-making when

viewed against the background of [the student’s] entire career at

the University.’” Wheeler v. Miller,

(5th Cir.

1999) (citation omitted).

Under this standard, Moore has failed to show that the

professors did not exercise professional judgment. On this record,

no rational trier of fact could find that the professors’ treatment

of Moore was beyond the pale of reasoned academic decision-making

in light of Moore’s entire academic career. Accordingly, the

judgment of the district court is

AFFIRMED.

2