The opinion
USCA11 Case: 24-10074 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 1 of 6
[DO NOT PUBLISH]
In the
United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit
____________________
No. 24-10074
Non-Argument Calendar
____________________
RAZVAN RUSOVICI,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA,
through its Board of Trustees, et al.,
Defendants,
MARCY VERDUIN,
in her official and individual capacity,
USCA11 Case: 24-10074 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 2 of 6
2 Opinion of the Court 24-10074
DOE DEFENDANTS 1-20
in their official and individual capacity,
THE UNIVERSITY OF CENTRAL FLORIDA
BOARD OF TRUSTEES,
Defendants-Appellees.
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Middle District of Florida
D.C. Docket No. 6:22-cv-02172-ACC-EJK
____________________
Before WILSON, NEWSOM, and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:
Plaintiff-Appellant Razvan Rusovici is a former student at
the University of Central Florida (UCF) College of Medicine who
withdrew his enrollment one day before he was scheduled to have
a formal hearing about cheating allegations against him. Proceed-
ing pro se before this court, Rusovici appeals the district court’s dis-
missal of his complaint against UCF, its Associate Dean of Students,
Dr. Marcy Verduin, and unnamed members of the UCF Board of
Trustees (together, Defendants). After thorough review of the rec-
ord, we affirm the district court’s dismissal.
USCA11 Case: 24-10074 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 3 of 6
24-10074 Opinion of the Court 3
I.
Rusovici was a medical student at UCF on January 27, 2020,
when he took a digital exam in a classroom using ExamSoft soft-
ware. Following the exam, two proctors accused him of academic
misconduct based both on his behavior during the exam as well as
ExamSoft data, which reported that he answered 35 of the 114 mul-
tiple choice test questions within 15 seconds of the student in front
of him. On February 19, Rusovici was informed of this possible
honor code violation. On February 21, he attended an initial hear-
ing where he explained to the student conduct council that in his
eastern European culture, prolonged eye contact was impolite, and
they should not take that as a sign of deceit. Then, on February 25,
Rusovici was informed that a formal hearing had been scheduled
for March 6. On March 2, he was provided with his ExamSoft data,
which he requested a one-week extension to review. The request
was granted, and the hearing was re-scheduled for March 13.
Then, on March 12—one day before the rescheduled formal hear-
ing—Rusovici reached out to Verduin, seeking an “informal reso-
lution” pursuant to the UCF Program Honor Code. Verduin de-
nied this request, and Rusovici withdrew his enrollment the same
day.
Rusovici subsequently filed suit, arguing that as a direct re-
sult of Defendants’ actions, his academic prospects, earning poten-
tial, and reputation were severely harmed. Rusovici argued that he
had property and liberty interests in continuing his medical educa-
tion at UCF and was denied a fair and impartial process for evalu-
ating his alleged honor code infraction, amounting to a violation of
USCA11 Case: 24-10074 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 4 of 6
4 Opinion of the Court 24-10074
his due process under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. He also alleged that the
student conduct council intentionally discriminated against him by
not considering his cultural differences concerning eye contact in
violation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000d. Defendants moved to dismiss, and the district court
granted the motion. Rusovici timely appealed.
II.
We review a district court’s order granting a motion to dis-
miss de novo, accepting all facts in the complaint as true and draw-
ing all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Randall v.
Scott, 610 F.3d 701, 705 (11th Cir. 2010). Rule 12(b)(6) permits a
party to move the district court to dismiss a complaint for “failure
to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P.
12(b)(6). To avoid dismissal, the complaint “must contain suffi-
cient factual matter . . . to state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (internal quota-
tions omitted). A claim is plausible “when the plaintiff pleads fac-
tual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference
that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.
A. Section 1983
Section 1983 provides a cause of action for citizens against
persons acting under color of state law for violating their constitu-
tional rights and other federal laws. 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Rusovici al-
leges both procedural and substantive due process violations.
In order to succeed on his procedural due process claim,
Rusovici must show that he was deprived of a constitutional
USCA11 Case: 24-10074 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 5 of 6
24-10074 Opinion of the Court 5
property interest by state action through a constitutionally inade-
quate process. Spencer v. Benison, 5 F.4th 1222, 1232 (11th Cir.
2021); see U.S. Const. amend. XIV, § 1. Rusovici did not exhaust
administrative remedies or participate in the process provided by
UCF, so the district court did not err in dismissing his procedural
due process claim. See Spencer, 4 F.4th at 1232.
Turning to substantive due process, we need not reach the
merits because Defendants are immune. The Eleventh Amend-
ment excludes from the jurisdiction of federal courts lawsuits
against a state, which includes state universities like UCF and state
officials like Verduin sued in their official capacity. U.S. Const.
amend. XI; Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco, 168 F.3d 405, 412 (11th
Cir. 1999); Jackson v. Ga. Dep’t of Transp., 16 F.3d 1573, 1575 (11th
Cir. 1994). And to overcome qualified immunity for his claim
against Verduin in her individual capacity, Rusovici must have: (1)
alleged facts that establish that Verduin “violated his constitutional
rights; and (2) show[n] that the right involved was clearly estab-
lished at the time of the putative misconduct.” Jacoby v. Baldwin
Cnty., 835 F.3d 1338, 1344 (11th Cir. 2016) (internal quotations
omitted and alteration adopted). Rusovici has not met this burden.
The only action Rusovici alleges was taken by Verduin was the de-
nial of his request for an informal resolution even though a formal
hearing was already scheduled. He cites no law supporting that
such a decision was a violation that “a reasonable official” would
have understood violated his rights. Id. Accordingly, we affirm the
dismissal of Rusovici’s substantive due process claim as well.
USCA11 Case: 24-10074 Document: 28-1 Date Filed: 08/02/2024 Page: 6 of 6
6 Opinion of the Court 24-10074
B. Title VI
Title VI states that “[n]o person in the United States shall, on
the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from par-
ticipation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimi-
nation under any program or activity receiving Federal financial
assistance.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. To survive dismissal on his Title VI
claim, Rusovici must “plausibly suggest that [he] suffered an ad-
verse employment action due to intentional . . . discrimination.”
Surtain v. Hamlin Terrace Found., 789 F.3d 1239, 1246 (11th Cir.
2015) (per curiam). But the record is devoid of explanation as to
how or why Rusovici’s lack of eye contact—or any other facet of
his national origin and culture—affected any portion of UCF’s
honor court proceedings. See id. Thus, Rusovici failed to plausibly
show that his national origin was related to the actions taken
against him by employees of UCF. See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678. Thus,
we affirm the district court’s dismissal of his Title VI claim.
AFFIRMED.