that Title VII, in some instances, extends to a situation in which a defendant controls, and has interfered with, an individual’s employment relationship with a third party, Zaklama v. Mt. Sinai Med. Ctr., 842 F.2d 291, 294 (11th Cir.1988), Andela has failed to make any allegations that would permit recovery under the Zaklama alternate theory. Andela has also failed to exhaust his administrative remedies as he only filed an EEOC complaint against UM and not UNC. Botelho v. Johanns, 353 Fed.Appx. 295, 300-01 (11th Cir.2009). Accordingly, Claim 21 is dismissed with prejudice. 4. Claim 23 — Violation of 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985 In Claim 23, Andela ma Cir.2006) (same); Fincher v. State of Fla. Dept. of Labor and Employment Sec. Unemployment Appeals Comm’n, 798 F.2d 1371, 1372 (11th Cir.) (<HOLDING>); McCreery v. North Carolina, No.
holding state is not a proper defendant under  1985 holding that denial of remand was proper where plaintiff failed to raise the proper objection holding venue proper where proper when the action was commenced holding that claims under  1983 1985 and 1986 are barred for the further reason that these statutes create rights solely against persons and a state is not considered a person under these statutes holding state is not a proper defendant under  1983