Elhaj-Chehade v. UT Southwestern Med

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
No. 99-60169
Summary Calendar
JAMAL Y. ELHAJ-CHEHADE, Petitioner,
versus
OFFICE OF THE CHIEF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER;
UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL CENTER,
Respondents.
- - - - - - - - - - -
Petition for Review of an Order of the
Office of the Chief Administrative Hearing Officer
OCAHO No. 98B00068
- - - - - - - - - - -
Consolidated with
No. 99-11112
Summary Calendar
JAMAL Y. ELHAJ-CHEHADE, Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UT SOUTHWESTERN MEDICAL SCHOOL, Defendant-Appellee.
- - - - - - - - - -
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Texas
USDC No. 3:98-CV-1622-P
- - - - - - - - - -
October 16, 2000
Before HIGGINBOTHAM, BARKSDALE, and WIENER, Circuit Judges.

-- 1 of 2 --

* 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that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent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.
PER CURIAM:*
In this consolidated appeal, Jamal Y. Elhaj-Chehade has filed
a petition for review of an order of the Office of the Chief
Administrative Hearing Officer (OCAHO) in No. 99-60169, and he has
appealed from the district court’s grant of summary judgment in his
federal civil complaint. Elhaj-Chehade argues that it was error to
hold that his suit against the University of Texas, Southwestern
Medical Center (UTSW), was barred by the Eleventh Amendment.
The Eleventh Amendment prohibits a private citizen from
bringing suit against a state or one of its agencies in federal
court without that state’s consent or without congressional
abrogation of immunity. Cronen v. Texas Dep’t of Human Servs., 977
F.2d 934, 937 (5th Cir. 1992). UTSW is an arm of the State. See
Tex. Educ. Code Ann. § 65.02(a)(7) and § 74.101. Elhaj-Chehade has
failed to demonstrate that UTSW has unequivocally waived its
sovereign immunity, and Congress did not unequivocally abrogate the
State’s sovereign immunity when it enacted 8 U.S.C. § 1324b. See
Hensel v. OCAHO, 38 F.3d 505, 508 (10th Cir. 1994). Accordingly,
the petition for review of the OCAHO’s decision in No. 99-60169 is
DENIED. The judgment of the district court is affirmed in No. 99-
11112. All outstanding motions are DENIED.

-- 2 of 2 --