Danielle Maffeo v. State of Nevada, ex Rel. Board of Regents of the Nevada System of Higher Education,…

This disposition is not appropriate for publication and is not precedent*
except as provided by 9th Cir. R. 36-3.
The panel unanimously concludes this case is suitable for decision**
without oral argument. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2).
NOT FOR PUBLICATION
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT
DANIELLE MAFFEO,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
v.
STATE OF NEVADA, ex Rel. Board of
Regents of the Nevada System of Higher
Education, on behalf of the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas; a political subdivision
of the State of Nevada; KAREN WEST,
individually and as Dean of the School of
Dental Medicine of the University of
Nevada, Las Vegas; DOES I-XX,
Defendants - Appellees.
No. 10-17620
D.C. No. 2:09-cv-02274-HDM-
LRL
MEMORANDUM*
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Nevada
Howard D. McKibben, Senior District Judge, Presiding
Submitted December 7, 2011**
San Francisco, California
FILED
DEC 15 2011
MOLLY C. DWYER, CLERK
U .S. C OU R T OF APPE ALS

-- 1 of 3 --

The Honorable William H. Stafford, Jr., Senior District Judge for the***
U.S. District Court for Northern Florida, sitting by designation.
2
Before: TROTT and BEA, Circuit Judges, and STAFFORD, Senior District
Judge.***
The University of Nevada Las Vegas expelled Danielle Maffeo from its
dental school because of her multiple academic failures in courses and her failure
to comply with conditions of academic probation. She unsuccessfully brought suit
in state court effectively seeking (1) to overturn the University’s decision, and (2)
to be reinstated. Undaunted, she brought this action two years later in district
court, alleging substantive and procedural due process violations under 42 U.S.C. §
1983. With the explicit consent of both parties, the collective defendants’ motion
to dismiss was converted into a motion for summary judgment, which the court
granted in their favor. She appeals. We have jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
1291, and we affirm.
After thoroughly reviewing the record, we conclude as follows.
1. The district court did not err in converting the motion to dismiss into a
motion for summary judgment. We note that Appellant’s counsel said he had “no
objection” to the court’s suggestion, and that the record was sufficient to do so.
Contrary to Maffeo’s claim, the district court did not prohibit her from conducting
additional depositions. In any event, she fails to indicate what additional evidence

-- 2 of 3 --

We note that Jason Bach’s briefs were woefully misleading by1
omission of material facts and circumstances about the progress of this case in
district court. We note also that this appeal is wholly frivolous. Fed. R. App. P.
38.
3
she was prevented from developing. Finally, she failed to file an opposition or
supplemental brief to the motion for summary judgment.
2. The record conclusively establishes that Maffeo was afforded
extensive procedural and substantive due process by all concerned in the lengthy
series of meetings and hearings that led up to her removal from the University’s
dental school.
3. The court’s decision that the Eleventh Amendment barred claims
against the State Board of Regents and Dean West in her official capacity was
correct.
4. Dean West was manifestly protected in her individual capacity by
qualified immunity.
5. Maffeo did not establish a genuine issue of fact on any of the claims
or issues in her complaint.1
AFFIRMED.

-- 3 of 3 --