Moulay Tidiri v. The Board of Regents, et al.

The Board of Regents’ decision to terminate Petitioner’s tenured professorship relied substantially on a 2012 Post-Tenure Review Report ("PTR”) of Petitioner supposedly written and signed by the six members of the 2012 Dept Tenured Fac­ ulty Review Committee (’'Committee”). Did the federal circuit err by sanctioning the lower court ruling dismissing Peti­ tioner’s complaints under FRCP 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim based on the Board of Regents’ decision despite:

1. During the hearing before ALJ Greta, Prof. Irv Hentzel a member of the Committee testified under Oath that he never saw this 2012 PTR before the hearing, he never participated, voted on, or signed any review of Petitioner in 2012 and that the Committee did not conduct, prepare, write, vote on, or sign that PTR or any other review of Petitioner in 2012.

2. After the hearing, Petitioner met with other members of the Committee including Profs. Yiu Tung Poon and Zhijun Wu. They stated to him in recorded conversations that the 2012 Committee did not conduct, prepare, write, vote on, or sign any Post-Tenure Review report of Petitioner in 2012.

3. The federal circuit did not conduct any de novo review of the issues in Petitioner’s appeals as required by the standard of review of motions to dismiss including under Rule 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim by this Supreme Court’s authorities.