74 F.3d 1232

Appellant appeals from the district court’s order dismissing her claims for lack of standing and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. We have reviewed the record and the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. The district court correctly determined that the Appellant lacked standing to assert a claim against twenty-five of the twenty-eight Defendants. As to the other three Defendants, we find that Appellant has failed to make the requisite prima facie case for any of her claims. Her Title VII and 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 1981 (West 1994) claims fail to meet this standard because Appellant has not alleged that she applied and was qualified for a particular job or that the Defendants continued to seek applicants of her qualifications after her rejection. 42 U.S.C.A. Sec. 2000e-2 (West 1994); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 (1973). Her Title VI claim fails because Appellant has not alleged that the Defendants receive federal financial assistance for the primary purpose of employment, or that she was the intended beneficiary of any such assistance. 42 U.S.C. Sec. 2000d-3 (1988); Soberal-Perez v. Heckler, 717 F.2d 36, 38 (2d Cir.1983). Finally, her equal protection claim fails because the hiring decisions of private institutions do not constitute state action. See Peterson v. City of Greenville, 373 U.S. 244, 247 (1963). Therefore, we affirm the district court’s order.

In light of this disposition, Appellees’ motion to strike is denied as moot. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process.*