1. Statute of Limitation of Title VI
11th Circuit Appeal Court dismissed Plaintiffs discrimination claims against Gwinnett Technical College et al., invoked under Title VI, by relying on their 'Rozar v. Mullis ", 85 F.3d 556 (11th Cir. 1996), which decided that the statute of limitation for Title VI is the statute of limitation for "personal injury ": in GA it is two years.
Despite 11th Circuit, Supreme Court in all their reviews of Title VI and other "Spending Clause Statutes " cases such as Title IX, etc., has regularly characterized Title VI as "Contract " and its remedy as "Remedy for Breach of Contract ".
Furthermore, U.S. Supreme Court 's guidelines for determining the statute of limitation of §1983 claims in Wilson v. Garcia , 471 U.S. 261 (1985), were not followed in deciding "personal injury " as statute of limitation of Title VI.
11th Circuit in their opinion (App.ll) said that Rozar will remain good law, and that they need an intervening Supreme Court decision that is clearly on point or directly in conflict with Rozar such that they may decline to apply that case.
Now, it is time that this important question was presented and answered by this Court:
Does U.S. Supreme Court characterize Title VI and all other Spending Clause Statutes as "Contract " or "Personal Injury "? And whether the statute of limitation of Title VI and all other Spending Clause Statutes is the statute of limitation of "Written Contracts " or the statute of limitation of "Personal Injury " in states?

2. APA and §704
OCR investigated Plaintiffs claim of discrimination against Gwinnett Technical College and issued a letter of findings. After Plaintiffs appeal, OCR sent an email to Plaintiff denying her appeal. Therefore both the initial investigation and its appeal are considered final.
11th Circuit dismissed Plaintiffs APA claim against OCR by relying on §704 and saying that judicial review under the APA is available only for an "[ajgency action made reviewable by statute and final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court. "
11th Circuit says that Plaintiff is banned from APA according to §704, because her claim against state Defendants is an adequate alternative remedy.
In Bowen v. Massachusetts, 487 U.S. 879 (1988), Supreme Court made it clear that §704 refers only to finality of the agency 's investigation: hence, it does not bar those investigations which are already complete as is Plaintiffs case.
In Bowen, Supreme Court stated that the agency 's action was reviewable under APA and that existence of a financial remedy shall not ban the APA for agency 's action.
11th Circuit ignores Bowen cited by Plaintiff and instead uses Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677 (1979) to dismiss her APA claim.
In Cannon, Supreme Court gave the private right of action to Plaintiffs of Title IX, just as it was for Title VI. Hence, Supreme Court gave another alternative to discrimination Plaintiffs besides the previous option of investigation by agencies.
The question presented is:
Does 11th Circuit Appeals Court have the authority to oppose Supreme Court 's opinion in Bowen and bar Plaintiffs APA claim against OCR by abusing Cannon?

Does the U.S. Supreme Court characterize Title VI and other Spending Clause Statutes as 'Contract' or 'Personal Injury', and what is the appropriate statute of limitations for such claims?