United States Court of Appeals For the Seventh Circuit No. 19-1905 JUSTIN CASTELINO, Plaintiff-Appellant,

v.

ROSE-HULMAN INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY, Defendant-Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division. No. 17 CV 139 — William T. Lawrence, Judge.

SUBMITTED* SEPTEMBER 29, 2020 — DECIDED JUNE 3, 2021

Before ROVNER, BRENNAN, and SCUDDER, Circuit Judges.

* The court ordered that oral argument in this case be vacated after appellant’s counsel was granted leave to withdraw. The case is therefore submitted on the briefs and record. 2 No. 19-1905

ROVNER, Circuit Judge. Justin Castelino was suspended from Rose-Hulman Institute of Technology for a semester for academic misconduct. When he applied to return the following spring, Rose-Hulman denied his requests for readmission and also informed him that he would not be permitted to reapply in the future. Castelino then sued Rose-Hulman, alleging that his suspension violated the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101 et seq. (“ADA”), and also asserting claims against Rose-Hulman for breach of contract, defamation, false advertising, invasion of privacy, and malice. The district court entered summary judgment for Rose-Hulman on all counts and also granted Rose-Hulman’s motion for sanctions based on Castelino’s failure to comply with a scheduling order. Castelino appeals, but we affirm. I. We note at the outset that Castelino’s brief falls short of compliance with Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 28 in many respects.1 Thus, although we construe the facts in the light most favorable to Castelino, we rely for the details on Rose-Hulman’s brief and the record, which more clearly, objectively, and accurately set forth the factual background. In the fall of 2012, Castelino enrolled as a transfer student at Rose- Hulman Institute of Technology, a private engineering, mathematics, and science college in Terre Haute, Indiana. As a student at Rose-Hulman, Castelino received certain accom-

1 In addition to the more substantive deficiencies, which we will describe where relevant, Castelino’s brief contains numerous hallmarks of careless- ness, such as improper case citations and the misspelling of his name both in the caption (“Castelion”) and elsewhere in the brief (“Castleino”). No. 19-1905 3 modations based on what he identifies in his brief on appeal as a “documented auditory processing disorder.” Specifically, Castelino provided Rose-Hulman with a neuropsychological report diagnosing him with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (“ADHD”) and a learning disorder. Rose-Hulman granted Castelino an accommodation that allowed him to receive 100% extended time on tests and quizzes, which he was allowed to take in a distraction-free environment. While at Rose-Hulman, Castelino was reprimanded several times for academic misconduct. In 2013, one of Castelino’s professors, Dr. James Hanson, saw him copying from another student’s homework. Dr. Hanson issued a letter of academic misconduct following the incident. Castelino appealed the letter to the college’s Rules and Discipline Committee, but the Committee allowed the letter to remain in Castelino’s file. The following year Castelino received another letter of academic misconduct. This time he and another student submitted duplicate work in a course taught by Dr. Jeremy Chapman. The head of the Civil Engineering Department, Dr. Kevin Sutterer, met with Castelino about the incident. After hearing his explanation, Dr. Sutterer decided it was possible that Castelino had submitted the duplicate work as the result of