United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Eastern Division
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
STARRETT UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
cause came before the Court on the Defendants' Motion for
Summary Judgment . Plaintiff has responded [45, 46], and
Defendants have replied . Having reviewed the
parties' submissions, the relevant legal authority, and
otherwise being fully advised in the premises, the Court
finds the motion is well taken and will be granted for the
reasons set forth below.
at all times relevant was a student in the University of
Southern Mississippi (“USM”) Nurse Anesthesia
Program (“NAP”) in Hattiesburg, Mississippi. 
at ¶ 5. Nina McLain served as the Nurse Anesthesia
Program Director, and Marjorie Geisz-Everson served as the
Associate Nurse Anesthesia Program Director.  at p.1.
Plaintiff began his studies in the NAP in January of 2016.
first year of the program is didactic, or instructional,
rather than clinical. [42-2] 62:4-7. Students then progress
into the clinical setting where they are assigned clinical
sites and work cases under the supervision of a preceptor,
who is either a certified registered nurse anesthetist
(“CRNA”) or an anesthesiologist. [42-4] 11:15-25.
The student will show up and do a case with the preceptor.
[42-4] 19:7-9. The students in performing their cases will
hopefully initially get a daily evaluation from their
preceptors and then a monthly summary of their performances.
began his clinicals in January 2017 and was assigned to three
different facilities during his clinical rotation: Forrest
General in Hattiesburg (Jan-Mar), Southwest Regional Medical
Center in McComb (Apr-June), and the VA Medical Center in
Jackson (July-Aug). [42-2] 68:22-69:2. In July 5, 2017 after
receiving some unfavorable reviews and a host of other issues
arose, Plaintiff was placed on clinical probation and put
into a remediation plan. [42-2] at pp. 179-186. He then went
into his last rotation at the VA. [42-2] 69:3-8. Defendants
contend his performance did not improve, and he eventually
became a safety concern. [42-2] at pp. 148, 154, 156, 167. On
August 14, 2017, Plaintiff was formally dismissed from the
NAP.  at ¶ 14; [42-2] at p. 192. Plaintiff appealed
the decision and received a final decision affirming his
dismissal on January 30, 2018.  at ¶ 15.
filed this action on July 30, 2018, contending, inter
alia, that Defendants discriminated against him on the
bases of both race and gender.  ¶¶ 17, 18.
Defendants have now filed a Motion for Summary Judgment as to
all of Plaintiff's claims.
Summary Judgment Standard
provides that “[t]he court shall grant summary judgment
if the movant shows that there is no genuine dispute as to
any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a
matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a); see also Sierra
Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs., L.P.,
627 F.3d 134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010). The moving party bears the
initial burden of showing there is no genuine issue for
trial, and it may do so by pointing out “‘the
absence of evidence supporting the nonmoving party's
case.'” Skotak v. Tenneco Resins, Inc.,
953 F.2d 909, 913 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 506 U.S.
832 (1992) (quoting Latimer v. Smithkline & French
Labs., 919 F.2d 301, 301 (5th Cir. 1990)).
moving party meets this burden, the nonmoving party who will
have the burden of proof at trial must come forward with
summary judgment evidence establishing the existence of a
genuine issue; that evidence must be such that if introduced
at trial it would suffice to prevent a directed verdict
against the nonmovant. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477
U.S. 317, 321 (1986). A dispute is “genuine” if
“the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could
return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson
v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986);
see also Sierra Club, Inc. v. Sandy Creek Energy Assocs.,
L.P., 527 F.3d 134, 138 (5th Cir. 2010) (“An issue
is material if its resolution could affect the outcome of the
action.”). Summary judgment is mandatory “against
a party who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish
the existence of an element essential to that party's
case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof
at trial.” Brown v. Offshore Specialty Fabricators,
Inc., 663 F.3d 759, 766 (5th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322).
Court begins by recognizing that the Plaintiff has abandoned
his retaliation claim and all claims against Defendants, Nina
McLain and Marjorie Geisz-Everson, in their individual
capacities.  at p. 5. As such, the Court will analyze the
grounds for summary judgment only as to the race
discrimination claim under Title VI and the gender
discrimination claims under Title VII and Title IX. We start
with the Title VII claim.