Cases

Petition for rehearing denied.

Petition for writ of certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit denied.

OPINION OF THE COURT NYGAARD, Circuit Judge. Rother Jones alleges that, while he was a federal prisoner, prison officials denied him his prescription high blood pressure medication, causing him to suffer a debilitating stroke, which left him aphasic and quadriplegic. The district court granted the United States’ motion for summary judgment and denied Jones’

MEMORANDUM-DECISION and ORDER LAWRENCE E. KAHN, District Judge. I. INTRODUCTION In this employment action, Plaintiff, Sergeant Marie Rother (“Plaintiff’), brings a number of claims arising out of her treatment by supervisors and co-workers while she was employed by Defendant the NYS Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (“DOCCS”). See generally Dkt. No

84 F.3d 1021 Cherry HEIDEMANN, a minor child, June Heidemann, mother andnext friend, Nebraska Advocacy Services, Inc., aNebraska Corporation, Appellees,v.Thomas L. ROTHER, individually and in his official capacityas the Superintendent of Schools for Tecumseh PublicSchools; Colleen S. Naber, individually and in her officialcapacity as the Special Education Administrator for TecumsehPublic Schools; Donna Defreece, ind

McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge. This civil action was brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by Cherry Heidemann (hereinafter Cherry), a minor, along with her mother, June Heidemann, and Nebraska Advocacy Services, Inc. (collectively plaintiffs), alleging violations of Cherry’s constitutional rights to due process and equal protection and federal statutory rights under the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, 29 U.S.C. § 794, and the Individ

869 F.Supp. 899 (1994) Ronald D. ROTHER, Plaintiff, v. Donna E. SHALALA, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant. Civ. A. No. 93-4131-DES. United States District Court, D. Kansas. November 23, 1994. *900 Danton C. Hejtmanek, Bryan, Lykins & Hejtmanek, P.A., Topeka, KS, Paul F. McTighe, Jr., Tulsa, OK, for plaintiff.

MEMORANDUM JOYNER, District Judge. Defendant, the United States of America, has requested a summary judgment in its favor in the litigation that Plaintiff, Rother Jones, has brought against it. In considering a motion for summary judgment, a court must consider whether the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, show there is no genuine issue

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER CAUTHRON, District Judge. This matter comes before the Court on the motions of defendants Medical Consultants d/b/a Emergency Physician’s Billing Services, Inc. (EPBS), J.D. McKean (McKean), and EmCare and defendants Spectrum Emergency Care (Spectrum), Synergon and Coordinated Health Services, Inc. (Coordinated) to dismiss the claims of the qui tam relator al

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-130C (Filed: January 11, 2018) ) Keywords: Attorneys’ Fees; Prevailing MANUEL ALMANZA, et al., AND ) Party; Buckhannon; FLSA; Settlement OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED ) Agreement; Forum Rule; Avera. PERSONS, )

In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 13-130C (Filed: January 11, 2018) ) Keywords: Attorneys’ Fees; Prevailing MANUEL ALMANZA, et al., AND ) Party; Buckhannon; FLSA; Settlement OTHER SIMILARLY SITUATED ) Agreement; Forum Rule; Avera. PERSONS, )

ORDER JOYNER, United States Magistrate Judge. On August 6, 1998, the Court entered its findings and conclusions in connection with a May 1997 evidentiary hearing held on Plaintiffs’ November 15, 1996 motion for sanetions.1 The Court made findings and conclusions regarding what evidence Defendants had spoliated, the culpability with which it was spoliated, the import

57 F.Supp.2d 1122 (1999) UNITED STATES of America, ex rel. William I. KOCH and William A. Presley, Plaintiffs, v. KOCH INDUSTRIES, INC., et al., Defendants. No. 91-CV-763-K. United States District Court, N.D. Oklahoma. July 9, 1999. *1123 Phil Pinell, United States Attorney, Tulsa, OK, Gordon Jones, U.S. Department of Justice, Wa

ORDER KERN, Chief Judge. Now before the Court are the objections of both parties to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation filed April 7, 1999. The Court has undertaken a de novo review, pursuant to Rule 72(b) F.R.Cv.P. This is an action brought pursuant to the qui tam provisions of the False Claims Act (“FCA”), 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b)-(f). These provisions “authorize private indi

ORDER JOYNER, United States Magistrate Judge. Now before the Court is Plaintiffs’ motion for sanctions due to Defendants’ alleged destruction of relevant evidence. [Doc. No. 153]. The Court held a hearing and received evidence and heard testimony on Plaintiffs’ motion from May 12, 1997 to May 16, 1997. The Court also received additional evidence after the hearing. See March 30, 1998 Or

603 F.Supp. 533 (1984) Gerald C. ROTHER, Plaintiff, v. LA RENOVISTA ESTATES, INC., an Oklahoma corporation, Earl E. Meyer, David H. Ratliff and Larry L. Hodges, Defendants and Third Party Plaintiffs, v. Wanda Jean ROTHER, Third Party Defendant. No. Civ. 83-206-R. United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma. September 24, 1984. *

111 F.3d 140 97 CJ C.A.R. 624 NOTICE: Although citation of unpublished opinions remains unfavored, unpublished opinions may now be cited if the opinion has persuasive value on a material issue, and a copy is attached to the citing document or, if cited in oral argument, copies are furnished to the Court and all parties. See General Order of November 29, 1993, suspending 10th Cir. Rule 36.3 until December 31, 1995, o

679 F.3d 737 (2012) UNITED STATES of America, Appellee, v. Fred NEAL, Jr., Appellant. No. 11-3506. United States Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit. Submitted: April 19, 2012. Filed: May 18, 2012. *738 Kim Driggers, FPD, argued, Little Rock, AR, for appellant. John E. Bush, USA, argued, Little Rock, AR, for

The defendant was convicted of the crime of embezzlement and appeals from the judgment of conviction and from the order denying a motion for a new trial. The indictment was returned by the same grand jury which returned the indictment in State v. Rother, ante, 875, 219 N.W. 574; the same motion was made to set *Page 936 aside the indictment in this case as was made in the other, the same proceedings had thereon and the s

This is an action to recover on a $10,000 bond given by the Towner County Bank to enable it to become a depository of the funds of the plaintiff county. The defendants are the sureties on said bond. Defendants F.C. Rother, A.M. Rother and C.H. Alcock defaulted. There is but one defense set up by the defendants Currie and Mullett. A copy of the bond was attached to and made a part of the complaint. The bond contains this provision, among others: "Provided, further, that said obli