UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT

SUMMARY ORDER

T H I S SUMMARY ORDER WILL NOT BE PUBLISHED IN THE FEDERAL

R E P O R T E R AND MAY NOT BE CITED AS PRECEDENTIAL AUTHORITY TO

T H I S OR ANY OTHER COURT, BUT MAY BE CALLED TO THE ATTENTION

O F THIS OR ANY OTHER COURT IN A SUBSEQUENT STAGE OF THIS

C A S E , IN A RELATED CASE, OR IN ANY CASE FOR PURPOSES OF

C O L L A T E R A L ESTOPPEL OR RES JUDICATA.

A t a stated term of the United States Court of Appeals

f o r the Second Circuit, held at the Thurgood Marshall United

S t a t e s Courthouse, at Foley Square, in the City of New York,

o n the 20th day of March, two thousand and six.

PRESENT: H O N . DENNIS JACOBS,

C i r c u i t Judge,

H O N . JOHN G. KOELTL, 1

D i s t r i c t Judge.

X

M O H A M E D A. HAFEZ,

Plaintiff-Appellant,

-v.- 05-5405-CV

J E R Y L L. MUMPOWER, Vice President of

A c a d e m i c Affairs, PETER A. BLONIARZ,

D e a n , School of Information Science,

F R A N C E S REYNOLDS, Assistant Dean,

S c h o o l of Information Science, and U N I V E R S I T Y AT ALBANY, 2 Defendants-Appellees.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -X A P P E A R I N G FOR PLAINTIFF APPELLANT: M O H A M E D A. HAFEZ, pro se, S c h e n e c t a d y , NY.

A P P E A R I N G FOR DEFENDANTS APPELLEES: J U L I E S. MERESON, Assistant S o l i c i t o r General (Eliot S p i t z e r , Attorney General of the S t a t e of New York, on the brief, N a n c y A. Spiegel, Senior A s s i s t a n t Solicitor General, of c o u n s e l ) , Albany, NY.

A p p e a l from the United States District Court for the N o r t h e r n District of New York (Sharpe, J.).

U P O N DUE CONSIDERATION, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED A N D DECREED that the judgment of the district court be AFFIRMED.

P l a i n t i f f Mohamed A. Hafez ("Hafez") pro se appeals f r o m a judgment entered on September 23, 2005, in the United S t a t e s District Court for the Northern District of New York ( S h a r p e , J.), granting defendants' motion to dismiss the c o m p l a i n t under Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6), Fed. R. Civ. P.

H a f e z pro se commenced this action pursuant to 42U.S.C. §§ 1 9 8 1 and 1983 alleging that defendants discriminated against h i m based on his Arab ancestry in denying his application f o r admission to the Ph.D. program in information science f o r the Fall 2002 semester at the State University of New Y o r k at Albany ("SUNY Albany"), and that he was denied 2 Appellant's notice of appeal includes the University a t Albany as an appellee, but the official caption does not.

Accordingly, the official caption is hereby amended to i n c l u d e the University (as above). a d m i s s i o n to the program thereafter in retaliation for his s e n d i n g a letter of complaint to Dr. Karen Kitchcock, then p r e s i d e n t of SUNY Albany. The decision and order dismissing t h e complaint advised Hafez that final judgment would be e n t e r e d without further order of the court unless he filed a n amended pleading. Hafez nevertheless failed to amend.

F a m i l i a r i t y is assumed as to the facts, the procedural c o n t e x t , and the specification of appellate issues.

W e review de novo the district court's dismissal of the c o m p l a i n t under Rule 12(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. See Close v. N e w York, 125 F.3d 31, 35 (2d Cir. 1997) (Rule 12(b)(1)); P a i n e W e b b e r Inc. v. Bybyk, 81 F.3d 1193, 1197 (2d Cir. 1996) ( R u l e 12(b)(6)).

( 1 ) The claims against SUNY Albany were properly d i s m i s s e d because they are barred by the Eleventh Amendment.

S e e Dube v. State Univ. of New York, 900 F.2d 587, 594 (2d C i r . 1990) ("For Eleventh Amendment purposes, [the State U n i v e r s i t y of New York (SUNY)] `is an integral part of the g o v e r n m e n t of the State [of New York] and when it is sued t h e State is the real party.'") (quoting State Univ. of New Y o r k v. Syracuse Univ., 285 A.D. 59, 61 (3d Dep't 1954)).

( 2 ) The claims against the individual defendants--Jeryl L . Mumpower, Perer A. Bloniarz, and Frances Reynolds--were p r o p e r l y dismissed because the plaintiff has failed to raise s p e c i f i c factual allegations supporting his claims of c o n s t i t u t i o n a l violations. His complaint is thus i n s u f f i c i e n t as to these defendants. See Rule 12(b)(6), F e d . R. Civ. P.

( a ) As to Mumpower, Hafez alleges only that his c o m p l a i n t letter was forwarded to that defendant, who, in r e s p o n s e , "sent [Hafez] a few emails, [but] did nothing else a b o u t it." Such a vague assertion does not support a d i s c r i m i n a t i o n claim.

( b ) As to Bloniarz, Hafez alleges that that d e f e n d a n t did not return his phone calls or emails r e q u e s t i n g a waiver of the GRE test score submission r e q u i r e m e n t , or attend Hafez's interviews with Reynolds.

T h e s e allegations are likewise insufficient.

( c ) As to Reynolds, Hafez asserts that (1) he c a l l e d Reynolds to inquire about his visa status, given that ( a c c o r d i n g to Reynolds) people of Arab dissent require a v i s a to attend SUNY Albany; (2) Reynolds asked him to submit h i s GRE scores or to write to Bloniarz for a wavier of this r e q u i r e m e n t ; and (3) Reynolds conducted an interview during w h i c h time Hafez discussed his proposed course of study.

N o w h e r e does Hafez allege either how Reynolds engaged in any u n l a w f u l conduct or what he did to prejudice his application.

( 3 ) Hafez's retaliation claim fails because he has not a l l e g e d a causal nexus between the allegedly protected s p e e c h (here, his sending a complaint letter to the p r e s i d e n t of SUNY Albany) and his rejection from the Ph.D. p r o g r a m . See Davis v. Goord, 320 F.3d 346, 352 (2d Cir. 2 0 0 3 ) ; Washington v. County of Rockland, 373, F.3d 310, 320 ( 2 d Cir. 2004). Indeed, Hafez mailed his complaint letter i n March 2003, six months after his application had already b e e n denied.

( 4 ) Hafez similarly fails to allege sufficient facts to s u p p o r t his due process and First Amendment claims against t h e individual defendants.

W e have considered all of Hafez's remaining arguments a n d find them to be lacking in merit. For the foregoing r e a s o n s , the judgment of the district court is hereby AFFIRMED.

F O R THE COURT: R O S E A N N B. MACKECHNIE, CLERK By: L u c i l l e Carr, Deputy Clerk

1 The Honorable John G. Koeltl, United States District J u d g e for the Southern District of New York, sitting by designation.