…has been dismissed.  Unlike his defamation suit against the media outlets that falsely reported he had been accused of "rape"–which was wrongly dismissed by a state court judge–this decision seems well-reasoned and on some points clearly sound.  (Note that this case, unlike the earlier one, was in federal court, where the quality of the judges is higher on average.)  Note, however, that the judge leaves open that Ludlow may file an amended complaint on some of the counts; in a motion to dismiss, as the judge's opinion explains (see p. 6), the court accepts the plaintiff's statement of facts, and then determines whether they state legal claims.  (In some instances, as the court does here, the court may also conclude that no reasonable jury could find in favor of the plaintiff on the facts as pleaded.)  Some of Ludlow's claims may be salvaged with an amended complaint–most obviously, the defamation claim against the graduate student, which was dismissed because of failure to allege facts sufficient to find that the student's "qualified privilege" in reporting misconduct should be forfeited.  (On the issue of privilege, see this earlier discussion; note that the defamation claim against Professor Lackey was, correctly as far as I can see, dismissed because of the statute of limitations.)   (Remember, too, that Professor Lackey and the graduate student have been indemnified by the University for their legal expenses–the latter because of Professor Lackey's foresight in the matter.)