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. |
|