JULIA SMITH GIBBONS, Circuit Judge. Thurman King sued Officers Zachary Abbate and Jason Bradley, the City of Rockford (“City”), the Rockford Public Safety Department (“Department”), and other municipal officers (collectively, “defendants”) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law for events arising out of a 2019 traffic stop. The district court granted partial summary judgment in favor of defendants, but denied their motion for summary judgment on qualified and governmental immunity grounds for King’s federal and state tort claims against Abbate and Bradley, and denied their motion as to King’s Monell¹ claim against the City and Department. Defendants appealed this denial. On review, we affirm in part, and reverse in part, the district court’s denial of qualified and governmental immunity to Abbate and Bradley. We dismiss the City and Department’s appeal for lack of appellate jurisdiction.

JANE B. STRANCH, Circuit Judge. This appeal centers on the habeas petition of Lafayette Deshawn Upshaw, a state inmate in the custody of the Michigan Department of Corrections. In 2014, the State charged Upshaw with crimes associated with two separate incidents that occurred on the same day: a gas station robbery and a home invasion. Upshaw entered a plea deal in the home invasion case but went to trial and was convicted on counts stemming from the robbery. Michigan’s state courts affirmed his robbery conviction on direct appeal. After exhausting his state court remedies, Upshaw filed a petition for habeas relief in federal court. The district court granted relief on two of Upshaw’s claims: an ineffective assistance of counsel claim based on trial counsel’s failure to investigate alibi witnesses and a Batson claim deriving from the State’s use of peremptory challenges to strike six Black jurors. The Warden now appeals. We AFFIRM

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In a previous proceeding, we enforced a National Labor Relations Board Order finding that respondent Bannum Place of Saginaw, LLC engaged in unfair labor practices in violation of 29 U.S.C. § 158(a)(1), (3), and (4) when it interrogated employees, threatened to close its facility, and terminated two union supporters. The National Labor Relations Board now seeks to enforce its supplemental decision and order directing Respondents to pay specific backpay amounts to the two discriminatees, and Respondents petition for review of the supplemental decision and order. For the reasons that follow, we GRANT the National Labor Relations Board’s application for enforcement and DENY Respondents’ cross-petition.