|
LUIS DOMINGUEZ, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CORRECTIONAL MEDICAL SERVICES, et al., Defendants, JULIE FLETCHER, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit.
No. 05-72015—George C. Steeh, District Judge.
Argued: December 5, 2008
Decided and Filed: February 17, 2009
Before: MERRITT, MOORE, and COLE, Circuit Judges.
COLE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellee Luis Dominguez filed his claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging that on July 7, 2002, while housed at a Michigan Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) facility, he was subjected to excessive force and inadequate medical care in violation of the Eighth Amendment, as well as gross negligence under Michigan state law. The issue before this Court is whether the district court properly denied Defendant-Appellant Julie Fletcher’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
|
ARCH OF KENTUCKY, INC., Petitioner, v. DIRECTOR, OFFICE OF WORKERS’ COMPENSATION PROGRAMS, UNITED STATES; UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; and FRED HATFIELD, Respondents. |
|
On Petition for Review of a Final Order
of the Benefits Review Board.
No. 06-0911.
Argued: January 21, 2009
Decided and Filed: February 17, 2009
Before: McKEAGUE and GRIFFIN, Circuit Judges; WEBER, Senior District Judge.
McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. Fred Hatfield filed for benefits under the Black Lung Benefits Act, 30 U.S.C. §§ 901-944 (“Act”). His last employer, Arch of Kentucky, Inc. (“Arch”), raised several challenges to his claim. Adjudicators for the U.S. Department of Labor’s Office of Workers’ Compensation Programs (“OWCP”) granted his claim and the Department’s Benefits Review Board (“BRB”) affirmed on appeal.
Arch petitions this court to reverse. For the reasons set forth below, we affirm.
|
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. CLARENCE BELL, III, Defendant-Appellant. |
|
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland.
No. 06-00091—John R. Adams, District Judge.
Argued: January 20, 2009
Decided and Filed: February 17, 2009
Before: MOORE, CLAY, and KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judges.
KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Clarence Bell, III appeals the district court’s denial of his motion to suppress evidence obtained during a traffic stop. After Bell was pulled over for speeding, a drug-detection dog alerted to Bell’s vehicle, and a subsequent search of the vehicle revealed four bags containing crack cocaine. Bell was indicted on one count of possessing with intent to distribute 50 grams or more of a mixture or substance containing a detectable amount of cocaine base (crack) in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 841(a)(1), (b)(1)(A). After the district court denied Bell’s motion to suppress, Bell pleaded guilty to the count alleged, but reserved his right to appeal the denial of the motion to suppress. On appeal, Bell argues that the district court erred in denying his motion because the officers ceased diligently pursuing the purpose of the initial stop without reasonable suspicion of drug activity. Because we conclude that Bell’s seizure was not unreasonably prolonged beyond the purposes of the initial stop, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of the motion to suppress.