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.