In Claim 23, Andela cites 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, but does not make any allegations whatsoever other than to incorporate all of his prior allegations. Id. ¶ 186. In his Response (dkt. # 24), Andela does not dispute UM’s characterization that his Claim 23 is for discrimination and retaliation. Andela simply argues that res judicata and collateral estoppel should not apply because the ALJ and state court affirmance should be considered void. Under § 1983, a plaintiff must show that the defendant acted under color of state law. Gomez v. Toledo, 446 U.S. 635, 640, 100 S.Ct. 1920, 64 L.Ed.2d 572 (1980). UM is a private university. “Only in rare circumstances can a private party be viewed as a [s]tate actor for section 1983 purposes.” Rayburn v. Hogue, 241 F.3d 1341, 1347 (11th Cir.2001) (<HOLDING>). Moreover, when § 1983 is used as a parallel
holding um did not act under color of state law when it terminated an employee holding that waiver of um coverage was ineffective under south carolina law because insurer did not adequately advise insured party about um coverage holding that a public defender does not act under color of state law when performing the traditional functions of counsel to a criminal defendant holding that a town manager did not act under color of state law when making allegedly defamatory statements about the plaintiff holding that public defenders do not act under color of state law and therefore are not subject to suit under 42 usc  1983