CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
BRADLEY M. PETERSON, Ph.D.,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
KRISTINA M. JOHNSON, Ph.D., in her individual and official capacities; BRUCE A. MCPHERON, Ph.D., in his individual capacity only; MELISSA L. GILLIAM, M.D., M.P.H., in her official capacity only,
Defendants-Appellees.
   No. 23-3338
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Ohio at Columbus.
No. 2:22-cv-00276—Edmund A. Sargus, Jr., District Judge.
Decided and Filed: December 5, 2023
Before: MOORE, McKEAGUE, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Bradley Peterson sued Kristina Johnson and Bruce McPheron1 pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that Johnson and McPheron violated his procedural-due-process rights. Peterson alleges that he had a property interest in his status as an emeritus professor at the Ohio State University (“Ohio State”) and that Johnson and McPheron deprived him of that status without adequate process. The district court dismissed the complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), finding that Peterson’s emeritus status was not a constitutionally protected property interest. Peterson now appeals. For the reasons explained below, we AFFIRM the district court.



CLICK HERE FOR FULL TEXT
RUDOLPH BETANCOURT,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
INDIAN HILLS PLAZA LLC, a Michigan Limited Liability Company,
Defendant-Appellee.
   No. 23-1316
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City.
No. 1:21-cv-10436—Thomas L. Ludington, District Judge.
Decided and Filed: December 5, 2023
Before: BOGGS, SUHRHEINRICH, and READLER, Circuit Judges.


_________________________
OPINION
_________________________

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. Rudolph Betancourt’s disability made it difficult for him to access a shopping plaza. Invoking the Americans with Disabilities Act, Betancourt filed suit against the plaza’s owner. The owner admitted fault as to some alleged violations and undertook remedial efforts. Later, the district court entered a final judgment directing the owner to correct the remaining violations. The court also awarded Betancourt $12,000 in attorney’s fees and costs. Betancourt, however, believes he is entitled to more fees and costs. Finding no abuse of discretion by the district court, we affirm.