Samuel Maurice Hicks Jr.

“UPT’s Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 21) is GRANTED, as both Randall’s failure to accommodate claim and regarded as claim under the ADA fail as a matter of law.”

“IT IS ORDERED that the Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (Record Document 24) filed by Vivint is DENIED and the Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 30) filed by the City is GRANTED.”

“the Motion for Summary Judgment (Record Document 30) filed by the City is GRANTED.”

“Scottsdale’s Motion to Reconsider (Record Document 157), which seek reconsideration of the Magistrate Judge’s Order entered September 28, 2016 (Record Document 156), is DENIED.”

“Accordingly, the United States’ "Motion to Dismiss" (Record Document 9) is DENIED.”

“For the reasons stated herein, Plaintiffs motion is DENIED.”

“Based on the following analysis, the Motion for Partial Dismissal is GRANTED and all of McKinley’s claims asserted under Louisiana Revised Statutes 6:333 and 9:3571 against Defendants Edward Parker and Paula Powell are dismissed with prejudice.”

“Based on the following analysis, the Motion for Partial Dismissal is GRANTED and all of McKinley’s claims against Powell asserted under Louisiana Revised Statutes 6:333 and 9:3571 are dismissed with prejudice.”

“Because the Court finds that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that the Government is entitled to judgment as a matter of law, the Government’s Motion is hereby GRANTED, and Defendants’ Motion is hereby DENIED.”

“Based on the foregoing, the Motion to Dismiss filed by Arch (Record Document 25) is GRANTED.”

“All of Adams’ other § 1983 claims (including all official capacity claims against Officers Coleman and Neville) are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“Because Defendants’ Motion technically seeks dismissal of all of Adams’ claims with the exception of his excessive force claims against Officer Coleman but fails to address the similar assault and battery claims against Officer Coleman under state law, the Motion is DENIED with respect to those claims.”

“Mills’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED as to his claims against the Board and Sergeant Brook, who are hereby ordered to grant Mills a hearing on his appeal within sixty days of this ruling.”

“For the reasons stated above, the motion for summary judgment filed by the City, Chief Shaw, and Deputy Chief Huddleston is GRANTED and all of the plaintiff's claims against them are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“The motion for summary judgment filed by the Board and Sergeant Brook is DENIED.”

“EDT's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED as to Yor-Wic's claims for error as to cause, equitable estoppel, impossibility of performance, and False Claims Act. Thus, these claims are hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“EDT's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is DENIED as to Yor-Wic's subjective novation claim.”