BOGGS, Chief Judge. In this case, we consider whether a district court may summarily enforce a settlement agreement that produced the dismissal of an earlier federal suit when the court has diversity jurisdiction over the breach-of-settlement-agreement controversy. We conclude that it may, and we therefore affirm the district court’s judgment.

DAN AARON POLSTER, District Judge. Appellants David Saad and Brad Davis appeal the District Court’s denial of their motions for summary judgment on qualified immunity grounds. The District Court denied summary judgment because there were triable issues of material fact. Viewing the facts in the light most favorable to the Appellees, Appellants used excessive force in violation of the Fourth Amendment when arresting Appellee. We therefore affirm.

CLAY, Circuit Judge. Plaintiff William Wuliger (the “Receiver”) filed this diversity suit against Defendant Manufacturers Life Insurance Company (USA) (“MLIC”) seeking rescission of three insurance policies and the return of premiums paid on them after they were fraudulently procured for the benefit of a viatical investment company in receivership. MLIC now appeals the district court’s order granting summary judgment to the Receiver and denying MLIC’s motion for summary judgment. For the reasons that follow, we REVERSE the district court’s order and REMAND with instructions to grant summary judgment dismissing the action against MLIC.

SUTTON, Circuit Judge. As part of its efforts to revitalize the local economy, the City of Detroit in the late 1990s built a new stadium, Comerica Park, for its professional baseball team (the Tigers) and a new stadium, Ford Field, for its football team (the Lions). Soon after completing the stadiums (stadia if you like), Detroit sought to feature them by putting in bids to host the Super Bowl for the National Football League, the All-Star game for Major League Baseball and most recently the Men’s Basketball Final Four for the National Collegiate Athletic Association.

When the first of these bids succeeded—when the NFL in 2002 agreed to hold the Super Bowl at Ford Field in 2006—the City began to prepare for the event. In 2003, it created a development program, empowered to reimburse up to 50% of the costs of refurbishing the exteriors of downtown buildings and parking lots. The program was limited to property in a discrete section of downtown Detroit but reached out to all property in that area, including property owned by religious organizations. Three churches participated in the program: a Methodist church, a Baptist church and an Episcopal church. Of the $11.5 million allocated for completed and authorized projects, 6.4% (or about $737,000) went to these churches.

The question at hand is whether the Establishment Clause of the United States Constitution, or its counterpart in the Michigan Constitution, prohibits the City from including religious organizations in the program. The lead plaintiff, American Atheists, maintains that they do, and it filed this lawsuit to enjoin the agency from making any grants to religious entities. The district court rejected these arguments in large part, and we reject them in full.

Everyone agrees that the program allocates benefits to a broad spectrum of entities on a neutral basis, as the City awards grants without regard to the religious, non-religious or areligious nature of the entity. The facial neutrality of the program, everyone also agrees, does not mask an intent to advance religion: Detroit sought to fix up its downtown, not to establish a religion. And as will generally be the case when a governmental program allocates generally available benefits on a neutral basis and without a hidden agenda, this program does not have the impermissible effect of advancing religion in general or any one faith in particular. By endorsing all qualifying applicants, the program has endorsed none of them, and accordingly it has not run afoul of the federal or state religion clauses.

ROGERS, Circuit Judge. Shares owned by a bankrupt party amounting to a one-third interest in a closely held corporation—shares that the debtor had not originally listed in the bankruptcy petition—subsequently increased in value. The debtor and the bankruptcy trustee agreed that if the debtor paid to the bankruptcy estate an amount sufficient to cover all the bankrupt’s debts for which creditors had filed proofs of claim, the trustee would seek bankruptcy court approval to treat the stock as “abandoned” nunc pro tunc to the time of bankruptcy filing, thereby leaving the stock in the hands of the debtor. The bankruptcy court approved the arrangement and the nunc pro tunc abandonment in a decision affirmed by the Bankruptcy Appellate Panel. The owner of the remaining shares of the corporation—who sought to buy the debtor’s stock from the trustee—appeals, contending among other things that the deal did not comply with the statutory requirements for abandonment in 11 U.S.C. § 554. The appellant co-owner, however, lacks a legally protected interest in his ability to purchase the debtor’s interest in the property, and therefore lacks bankruptcy appellate standing. The legal bases for the co-owner’s challenges to the settlement and abandonment serve to protect the estate and its creditors, not those who want to purchase the property in question.