CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
JEFFREY CAPEN,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SAGINAW COUNTY, MICHIGAN; ROBERT V. BELLEMAN,
Defendants-Appellees. |
No. 23-1665 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:21-cv-12465—F. Kay Behm, District Judge.
Argued: March 21, 2024
Decided and Filed: June 5, 2024
Before: BATCHELDER, MOORE, and CLAY, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff Jeffrey Capen, a former employee of Saginaw County,
Michigan, appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants Saginaw County
and Robert V. Belleman. After Defendants scheduled Capen for two fitness-for-duty
evaluations, Capen brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the fitness-for-duty
evaluations violated his procedural due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The
district court granted Defendants’ motion for summary judgment, concluding that Capen lacked
a constitutionally protected interest, that he received the process he was due, and that Defendant
Belleman was entitled to qualified immunity. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the
district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendants. |
CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT |
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v.
JOHN L. STANTON, M.D.,
Defendant-Appellant. |
No. 23-5394 |
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky at London.
No. 6:21-cr-00019-4—Robert E. Wier, District Judge.
Argued: May 28, 2024
Decided and Filed: June 5, 2024
Before: SUTTON, Chief Judge; CLAY and BUSH, Circuit Judges.
_________________________
OPINION
_________________________
SUTTON, Chief Judge. Dr. John Stanton served as the medical director for a pain clinic
in northern Tennessee. The federal government alleged that the clinic operated as a pill mill and
charged Dr. Stanton with conspiring to violate federal drug laws. After a seven-day trial, a jury
convicted him. On appeal, Dr. Stanton challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the
jury’s verdict and several rulings by the trial court. We affirm. |
|