Kunal Saha v. Ohio State University

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION
File Name: 08a0036n.06
Filed: January 9, 2008
No. 07-3322
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT
KUNAL SAHA,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
OHIO STATE UNIVERSITY; COLUMBUS
CHILDREN’S HOSPITAL RESEARCH
INSTITUTE; PHILLIP JOHNSON, Columbus
Children’s Hospital Research Institute;
THOMAS HANSEN, Chair, Pediatrics
Department, College of Medicine, The Ohio
State University; FREDERICK SAN FILIPPO,
Dean, College of Medicine, The Ohio State
University; CAROLE ANDERSON, Vice-
Provost, The Ohio State University,
Defendants-Appellees.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Before: DAUGHTREY, GILMAN, and COOK, Circuit Judges.
COOK, Circuit Judge. Kunal Saha appeals the district court’s judgment granting motions
to dismiss by the various defendants. Having had the benefit of oral argument, and having studied
the record on appeal and the parties’ appellate briefs, we are not persuaded that the district court
erred. And because we agree with the thorough analysis articulated by the district court, issuing a
detailed opinion of this court would be duplicative and serve no useful purpose. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment and adopt the reasoning of its opinion with one exception. In

-- 1 of 2 --

No. 07-3322
Saha v. Ohio State University
Marvin v. City of Taylor, No. 06-2008, ___ F.3d ___, 2007 U.S. App. LEXIS 27950, at *241
(6th Cir. Dec. 4, 2007) (“If there is no constitutional violation, then the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim fails
as a matter of law and the defendant is therefore entitled to summary judgment and does not need
qualified immunity.” (citing Scott v. Harris, 127 S. Ct. 1769, 1780 (2007) (Breyer, J., concurring)
(acknowledging Saucier’s requirement “that lower courts must first decide the ‘constitutional
question’ before they turn to the ‘qualified immunity question.’”))).
- 2 -
those instances where the district court determined that Saha failed to allege a constitutionally viable
claim, this court dismisses on that ground rather than looking to qualified immunity.1
We also respond to Saha’s criticism of the district court’s opinion for failing to address his
claims for injunctive relief. We find no fault with the district court’s opinion in this regard for two
reasons: 1) each count of the amended complaint asked only for money damages; and 2) even had
Saha properly pled a claim for injunctive relief, it is unavailable when the underlying claims are
properly dismissed.
We accordingly affirm.

-- 2 of 2 --