Reed Charles O'Connor

“Defendant's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 26) is GRANTED.”

“Plaintiff's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment (ECF No. 29) is GRANTED as to Defendant's affirmative defenses of policy exclusions, concurrent causation, estoppel, and waiver, and DENIED as to the existence of a bona fide dispute and the condition precedent of mitigation.”

“Defendant's motion to strike expert Monty Stone is DENIED.”

“Defendant Blake Norvell's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 67) is GRANTED and Plaintiffs John Deaton and Deaton Law Firm's claims asserted against Defendant Blake Norvell are DISMISSED with prejudice.”

“Petitioner's petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 is DENIED. Further, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2253(c), for the reasons discussed, a certificate of appealability is DENIED.”

“defendant Anderson's motion for summary judgment (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED and plaintiff Eimajonone E. Bailey shall take nothing on his remaining claims against defendant Dee Anderson, and such claims are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.”

“For the foregoing reasons, the government's motion to dismiss is GRANTED.”

“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 23)”

“DENIES Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment (ECF No. 25)”

“DENIES as moot Plaintiffs' Motion for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (ECF No. 10)”

“For the foregoing reasons, the Court hereby DENIES Defendant LTC's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 25).”

“it is ORDERED that Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment is GRANTED. Plaintiff's complaint is hereby dismissed with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i) as frivolous.”

“the Court determines that Plaintiff pleads sufficient facts at this stage to state plausible claims in Count I and Count II of his Amended Complaint. Therefore, the Court DENIES Defendants' Motion to Dismiss.”

“the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Final Rule violated the APA's procedural requirements because it was arbitrary and capricious and was not a logical outgrowth of the Proposed Rule; ... and VACATES the Final Rule.”

“DENIES Defendants' Cross Motion for Summary Judgment”

“Because courts presume that the federal government will comply with its rulings, Plaintiffs' requested injunctive relief is unnecessary and, thus, is DENIED.”

“The PrEP mandate violates Braidwood's rights under RFRA. The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and DENIES Defendants' summary judgment motion on Claim 5 as to Braidwood.”

“HRSA and ACIP do not, on this record, violate the Appointments Clause. The Court DENIES Plaintiffs' summary judgment motion and GRANTS Defendants' summary judgment motion on Claim 1 as to 42 U.S.C. § 300gg-13(a)(2) through (a)(4).”

“the remaining Plaintiffs have shown they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief as to their RFRA claims and to declaratory and injunctive relief and to a universal remedy with respect to their Appointments Clause claim as it relates to PSTF.”

“the Court DISMISSES with prejudice the religious objector Plaintiffs', including Braidwood Management Inc.'s, contraceptive mandate claims. The non-religious objector Plaintiffs' contraceptive mandate claims are DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.”