102 S.Ct. 2777, 73 L.Ed.2d 534 (1982), which held that a decision to discharge or transfer a patient to a different level of care was not state act 1995) (finding state action where private home care providers were required to make certain decisions under the statutory and regulatory scheme). Here, the decision being challenged is BU’s decision to terminate one of its students for failure to meet its academic research requirements under standards set by the university. To be sure, Dr. Missert contends that the university faculty failed to set standards that comply with feder , 97 L.Ed. 1152 (1953) (finding state action where a private organization conducted elections to select candidates for a primary election); Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501, 508, 66 S.Ct. 276, 90 L.Ed. 265 (1946) (<HOLDING>). The First Circuit has held that education is
holding that texas democratic party was subject to the fourteenth amendment as a state actor and rejecting as a slight  change in form defendants argument that because the democratic party was a private entity it was not a state actor holding that amtrak was a state actor holding that such a physician was a state actor under  1983 holding that a state agency created under state law was a state actor holding that companyowned town is a state actor