MEMORANDUM & ORDER Plaintiff Daniel Smigiel (“Smigiel” or “Plaintiff”) brings a motion to amend his Complaint, which I dismissed in its entirety on February 21, 2023. (ECF Docket Entry (“D.E.”) # 25 (“Memorandum and Order”).)1 Defendants in this action are the College of Staten Island (“CSI”) and two individuals being sued in their personal and official capacities: Dr. Frances Melendez (“Melendez”) and Dr. Lauren Rogers-Sirin (“Rogers-Sirin,” together with Melendez, the “Individual Defendants,” and collectively with CSI, “Defendants”). Defendants oppose Plaintiff’s motion on the grounds that my Memorandum and Order dismissed the majority of Plaintiff’s claims with prejudice and that Plaintiff’s proposed amendments do not cure the deficiencies of his original Complaint.2 Because Plaintiff’s Proposed Amended Complaint fails to cure any of the defects in his original pleading, Plaintiff’s motion seeking leave to amend is DENIED. BACKGROUND On November 15, 2021, Plaintiff — a former CSI student who graduated with a Bachelor of Science degree in Psychology and then pursued a Master of Arts in Mental Health Counseling at CSI — filed his original complaint. (D.E. # 1 (“Complaint” or “Compl.”) 10.) The thrust of Plaintiff’s Complaint is that he was branded a racist after he reported a Black student for threatening to “shoot up” CSI, that he was harassed by staff and his fellow students as a result, and that he received an A-rather than an A in one of his classes despite having earned enough points to receive an A. Defendants filed their motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on July 7, 2022. I granted Defendants’ motion on both grounds on February 21, 2023. I first held that CSI and the Individual Defendants (to the extent they were being sued in their official capacities) were entitled to sovereign immunity under the Eleventh Amendment. (Memorandum and Order 5-6.) I next held that Plaintiff had failed to state a constitutional due process claim for either procedural or substantive due process violations because Plaintiff had not alleged any deprivation of a protected interest, there were insufficient allegations to show a constitutionally inadequate process, and Plaintiff failed to overcome the deference given to academic institutions for the purposes of his substantive due process claim. (Id. 6-13.) In the absence of any viable federal causes of action, I also dismissed Plaintiff’s state-law claims without prejudice. (Id. 14.) I. Summary of the Complaint and Proposed Amendments Tamiliarity with the facts alleged in Plaintiff’s original Complaint is presumed and so I do not recount them in detail here. In brief, Plaintiff’s original Complaint alleges that while at CSI, he was bullied and harassed by his peers and faculty members after he reported a Black student for “threaten[ing] to shoot up the school.” (Compl.
11-12.) He alleges that he was “branded as racist” as a result. (Id.
