Sixth Circuit Cases

U.S. 6th Cir. Decisions for Week of May 19-23, 2008 (8 Ky cases)

CA6 Home

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0186p.06 2008/05/19	USA v. Heath     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0187p.06 2008/05/19	Giant Eagle, Inc. v. Phar-Mor, Inc.     Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown ALICE M. BATCHELDER, Circuit Judge. This is an appeal from the district court’s review of a bankruptcy-court order in a Chapter 11 proceeding. Giant Eagle, as lessor, appeals the decision disallowing its claim for future-rent damages arising from a bankrupt lessee’s rejection of a lease for personal property, which was disallowed on the basis that a substitute lease for that property, if fulfilled, would have mitigated the claimed damages. Phar-Mor, as lessee, appeals the decision granting the lessor administrative expenses in the form of post-petition rent payments, from the petition date until the lease-rejection date. Ultimately, we REVERSE with respect to the disallowance of future rent and REMAND to the district court, for further remand to the bankruptcy court for further proceedings. We AFFIRM the order granting as an administrative expense the post-petition rent due for the period from the petition date until the rejection of the lease.
08a0188p.06 2008/05/20	Sensations Inc v. City of Grand Rapids     Western District of Michigan at Kalamazoo KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. This case concerns a consolidated appeal by Sensations, Inc. et al. (“Sensations”) and Little Red Barn Adult Theatre & Bookstore, Inc. (“Little Red Barn”) (collectively “Plaintiffs-Appellants”), from the grant of a judgment on the pleadings to the City of Grand Rapids (“Grand Rapids”) and various private citizens and citizens’ groups (collectively “Defendants”). These private citizens and citizens’ groups include Michigan Decency Action Council, Inc., Judy Rose, Dar Vander Ark, and Black Hills Citizens for a Better Community (collectively “Non-City Defendants-Appellees”). Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan, seeking a preliminary injunction against an ordinance regulating sexually oriented businesses on the ground that the ordinance violated Plaintiffs-Appellants’ First Amendment and Due Process rights. The district court denied Plaintiffs-Appellants’ motion for a preliminary injunction, granted Defendants’ motion for judgment on the pleadings, and awarded attorney fees to Non-City Defendants-Appellees to be paid by Little Red Barn.
08a0189p.06 2008/05/21	Myers v. USA     Northern District of Ohio at Toledo
08a0190p.06 2008/05/21	Kolpacke v. CSX Pension Plan     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Gerald F. Kolpacke appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendants on his claim of wrongful denial of benefits in violation of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act, 29 U.S.C. § 1132 et seq. Kolpacke alleges that defendants arbitrarily and capriciously denied his claimed benefits by misapplying the relevant pension plan. The district court granted summary judgment in defendants’ favor because Kolpacke had failed to show that defendants’ had arbitrarily and capriciously applied the terms of the pension plan in calculating Kolpacke’s estimated benefits.
08a0191p.06 2008/05/22	Harris v. Haeberlin (Warden)     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville
08a0192p.06 2008/05/22	USA v. Smith     Eastern District of Michigan at Flint
08a0193p.06 2008/05/22	USA v. Bullock     Eastern District of Kentucky at London
08a0194p.06 2008/05/22	Cristini v. McKee     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0195p.06 2008/05/23	Nance v. Goodyear Tire Co     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiff-Appellant Marcia B. Nance appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment to Defendant-Appellee Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co. (“Goodyear”) on her claims alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Tennessee Handicap Act, and the Family and Medical Leave Act; retaliatory discharge, including violations of the Tennessee “whistleblower” law; wrongful and constructive discharge through alleged retaliatory conduct; outrageous conduct and intentional infliction of emotional distress in violation of Tennessee common law; and breach of a common law duty of good faith and fair dealing. For the following reasons, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
08a0196p.06 2008/05/23	Brand v. Motley     Eastern District of Kentucky at Ashland
08a0197p.06	USA v. Martin     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington

    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0273n.06	USA v. Wise     Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington
08a0274n.06	USA v. Jensen     Western District of Kentucky at Paducah
08a0275n.06	USA v. Murphy     Middle District of Tennessee at Columbia
08a0276n.06	Woods v. Chandler     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville
08a0277n.06	USA v. Hurley     Eastern District of Tennessee of Chattanooga
08a0278n.06	USA v. Odunze     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0279n.06	Durham v. Johnson     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0280n.06	Fritz v. Hausfeld     Eastern District of Kentucky at Lexington
08a0281n.06	USA v. Colon     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0282n.06	IN MI Power Co v. US Dept of Labor     Department of Labor (except OSHA)
08a0282n.06	Tipton v. US Dept of Labor     Department of Labor (except OSHA)
08a0283n.06	Gary Tyson v. Dept of VA     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0284n.06	Jason Givens v. Homecomings Financial     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0285n.06	Insomnia Inc v. City of Memphis TN     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0286n.06	EBI-Detroit Inc. v. Detroit Cty     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0287n.06	Ryan v. Hazel Park     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0288n.06	MI Sugar Co v. Baker Confectionary     Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City
08a0289n.06	Lacy v. US Dept of Agri     Department of Agriculture
08a0290n.06	Abel v. Harp     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0291n.06	Parma v. Cingular Wireless     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0292n.06	USA v. Hawkins     Northern District of Ohio at Akron

U.S. 6th Cir. Decisions for Week of May 12-16, 2008 (No Ky cases)

CA6 Home

    PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0176p.06 2008/05/1	Harden-Bey v. Rutter     Western District of Michigan at Marquette
08a0177p.06 2008/05/12	Jackson v. McKee     Eastern District of Michigan at Ann Arbor
08a0178p.06 2008/05/13	S&M Brands Inc v. Cooper     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville McKEAGUE, Circuit Judge. S&M Brands, Inc. and International Tobacco Partners, Ltd. (“ITP”) sued the Attorney General of the State of Tennessee in his official capacity.1 They claim that the State of Tennessee has violated federal antitrust law and the U.S. Constitution in its implementation and application of the Master Settlement Agreement (“MSA”) between various States and major tobacco manufacturers. The only claim before us in this appeal and cross-appeal is whether the Attorney General’s enforcement of an amended escrow provision has had an impermissible retroactive effect in violation of the Plaintiffs’ rights to due process.2 The district court concluded that, although ITP is not a tobacco product manufacturer, it had standing to seek a release of funds from escrow. On the merits of the Plaintiffs’ due-process claim, the district court granted summary judgment in favor of the Attorney General except as to ITP’s claim for a release of escrow funds associated with cigarette sales in 2003. For the reasons set forth below, we reverse and remand to the district court with instruction to dismiss the case without prejudice on grounds of sovereign immunity.
08a0179p.06 2008/05/13	Ukpabi v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0180p.06 ]2008/05/13	Claudia Marlar v. BWXT Y-12 LLC     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville KENNEDY, Circuit Judge. Ms. Claudia Marlar filed this action against her former employer, BWXT Y-12, L.L.C. (“BWXT”), alleging that it had violated the False Claims Act (“FCA”) by defrauding the United States government, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3729(a)(1)-(3), and by discharging her in retaliation for whistleblowing, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 3730(h). The district court held that Ms. Marlar’s claim of fraud was not pleaded with specificity, and therefore her cause of action was dismissed for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). The district court also held that Ms. Marlar failed to allege the elements necessary to establish a cause of action for retaliation, and therefore dismissed her complaint for failure to comply with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a). Ms. Marlar claims that both determinations are in error. We find that the district court properly dismissed Ms. Marlar’s fraud complaint, as Ms. Marlar failed to identify a single false claim and did not establish the specifics of the alleged fraud. We find, however, that Ms. Marlar adequately pleaded a cause of action for retaliation. We therefore affirm in part and reverse in part the district court’s decision, and we remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
08a0181p.06 2008/05/14	Lockett v. Suardini     Western District of Michigan at Marquette
08a0182p.06 2008/05/15	In re: Scrap Metal v.     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland R. GUY COLE, JR., Circuit Judge. Defendant-Appellant Columbia Iron and Metal Company (“Columbia”) appeals a jury verdict finding Columbia liable for antitrust violations and awarding the Plaintiffs-Appellees damages exceeding $20 million. The most critical question on appeal relates to the damages testimony of Plaintiffs-Appellees’ expert, Dr. Jeffrey Leitzinger. Columbia asserts that Leitzinger’s damages calculations are unreliable, and that the district court therefore erred in admitting his testimony. Columbia also raises three additional arguments on appeal: (1) the damages award is not supported by sufficient evidence and represents an impermissible “fluid recovery”; (2) the district court improperly allowed the case to proceed as a class action; and (3) the district court improperly instructed the jury on the tolling of the statute of limitations. Finding no reversible error by the district court, we AFFIRM the verdict and damages award.
08a0183p.06 2008/05/16	Zirnhelt v. MI Con Gas, et al     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit SUTTON, Circuit Judge. In this pension-benefits case, Diane Zirnhelt argues that the district court erred in (1) upholding the company’s denial of benefits, (2) denying her motion to amend her complaint to add an equitable-estoppel claim, (3) dismissing her breach-of-fiduciary-duty claim and (4) awarding her just $10,500 based on the company’s failure to provide her with pension plan documents in a timely manner. For its part, the company argues (in its cross appeal) that the district court should not have imposed any monetary penalty. We affirm.
08a0184p.06 2008/05/16	Bailey v. USF Holland, Inc     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville GRIFFIN, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Bobby Bailey and Robert Smith, both African-American, were dock workers and truck drivers for defendant USF Holland, Inc. After making numerous complaints over the course of several years regarding their coworkers’ habit of referring to them as “boy,” “hey boy,” or “damn it boy,” and subjecting them to other forms of racial harassment, plaintiffs sued defendant for violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Tennessee Human Rights Act. Following a non-jury trial, the district court ruled for plaintiffs and awarded damages. We affirm.
08a0185p.06 2008/05/16	Brittingham v. GMC     Southern District of Ohio at Dayton MERRITT, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs, Julie and David Brittingham, appeal the district court’s denial of their motions to remand the case to state court and its grant of summary judgment in favor of both defendants, Dr. Virginia Stull (“Dr. Stull”) and General Motors Corporation (“GM”). The plaintiffs’ claims arose from a pre-employment physical examination conducted by one of GM’s physicians, Dr. Stull. That examination produced two abnormal lung function tests, the results of which were never discussed with Ms. Brittingham. When she was later diagnosed with a lung disease, the plaintiffs sued GM, Dr. Stull, and several others for negligence, intentional misconduct, breach of fiduciary duty, and fraudulent concealment. The case was originally filed in state court, but was removed by the defendants to federal district court under 28 U.S.C. § 1441 on the basis of complete preemption. Because we find that the district court did not have subject matter jurisdiction at the time of removal, we VACATE the district court’s judgment and REMAND with instructions to remand the matter to the state court from which it came.

    NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0254n.06	USA v. Pickett     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0255n.06	Sy v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0256n.06	Lusher v. Mansfield     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0257n.06	James Burks, IV v. Yellow Transportation, Inc.     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0258n.06	USA v. Webb     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0259n.06	Michel v. City of Akron, et al     Northern District of Ohio at Akron
08a0260n.06	B & V Distr Co Inc v. Dottore Co LLC     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0261n.06	Humphrey v. US Atty Gen Office     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0262n.06	Wilks v. The Pep Boys     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0263n.06	USA v. Price     Western District of Tennessee at Jackson
08a0264n.06	Sanchez v. City of Franklin     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0265n.06	Seales v. Macomb Cnty,     Eastern District of Michigan at Flint
08a0266n.06	USA v. Hunt     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus

U.S. 6th Cir. Decisions for Week of May 5-9, 2008

CA6 Home

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0172p.06 2008/05/06	Fieger v. Cox     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs Geoffrey N. Fieger, John L. Barlow, Bill Miller, Nancy Fisher, the law firm of Fieger, Fieger & Johnson, and the J.L. Barlow advertising firm brought a vindictive prosecution action against Michigan Attorney General Michael Cox, Michigan Supreme Court Justice Stephen J. Markman, Michigan Secretary of State Terri Lynn Rand, and others in the Michigan Attorney General’s office. The district court found that the Younger abstention doctrine counseled against exercising jurisdiction where essentially the same issues were being raised in a state court proceeding, and dismissed each of the plaintiffs’ claims. Plaintiffs now appeal. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.
08a0173p.06 2008/05/06	Zoarab v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0174p.06 2008/05/07	B & H Med v. ABP Admin Inc     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. In this antitrust case, we consider the legality of an agreement between non-party Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan (“BCBSM”) and the Defendants-Appellees, Wright & Filippis, Inc. and its subsidiary ABP Administration, Inc. (collectively “W&F”). This agreement began in 1992 and established an exclusive network of preferred providers to supply durable medical equipment and prosthetics and orthotics to enrollees in certain health-benefits plans offered to Chrysler Corporation (“Chrysler”) employees and retirees and later to certain employees and retirees of Ford Motor Company, as well as participants in the Michigan Public School Employees Retirement System (“MPSERS”). Following a competitive bidding rocess, BCBSM selected W&F to administer the network created by the contract, which has since been renewed multiple times. After its application to join this network was rejected in 2000, Plaintiff-Appellant B & H Medical, L.L.C. (“B&H”), filed this lawsuit in September 2002, attacking the network under the antitrust laws as an illegal exclusive-dealing arrangement that allegedly barred B&H from competing in the “sale, lease or rental of medical durable equipment and medical supplies to large insurance provider networks,” which B&H claimed was the relevant market. Joint Appendix (“J.A.”) at 32-34 (Am. Compl. at ¶¶ 6-13). In a lengthy and well-reasoned opinion, the district court granted W&F’s motion for summary judgment, rejecting B&H’s definition of the relevant market and finding that B&H’s antitrust claims failed for several reasons, among them that B&H failed to demonstrate antitrust standing and that the alleged exclusive-dealing agreement foreclosed no more than thirteen percent of a properly defined relevant market. The district court later granted in part W&F’s motion for sanctions pursuant to Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, imposing over $84,000 dollars in sanctions against Attorneys-Appellants Stephen M. Ryan, P.L.L.C., and Stephen M. Ryan (collectively “Ryan”) for “failing to dismiss this case when a lengthy discovery period failed to disclose any support for the antitrust claims asserted in the complaint.” B & H Med., L.L.C. v. ABP Admin., Inc., 354 F. Supp. 2d 746, 748 (E.D. Mich. 2005). In addition to appealing the district court’s grant of summary judgment, B&H also appeals a discovery order issued by the district court that limited B&H’s efforts to obtain broad categories of information from nonparty BCBSM, and Ryan appeals the sanctions award. W&F filed a motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure (“FRAP”) 38 seeking the imposition of appellate sanctions against B&H and Ryan for pursuing a frivolous appeal. For the reasons discussed below, we AFFIRM the district court in all respects and we GRANT W&F’s motion for appellate sanctions.
08a0175a.06 2008/05/08	Royal Ins Co v. Orient Overseas     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs-Appellants Ford Motor Co. (“Ford”) and its cargo insurer, Royal Insurance Co. of America (“Royal”) (collectively, “Appellants”), brought this action against Defendant-Appellee Orient Overseas Container Line Ltd. (“OOCL,” or “Appellee”), an ocean carrier, for damages arising from the loss of cargo during a transatlantic voyage. OOCL impleaded Third-Party Defendants-Appellees M/V Canmar Pride, the carrying vessel; CP Ships (UK) Ltd.; CPS No. 3 Ltd.; and CPS No. 5 Ltd. (collectively, “Third-Party Appellees”). On September 29, 2005, the district court granted partial summary judgment for OOCL and Third-Party Appellees, ruling that Appellants’ claims were subject to the $500-perpackage liability limitation prescribed by the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (“COGSA”), 46 U.S.C. § 30701 et seq. Both the district court and this court authorized an interlocutory appeal of that ruling, and Appellants now argue that the district court’s ruling should be reversed. For the reasons set forth below, we REVERSE the judgment of the district court and REMAND this case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0229n.06	Paul House v. Ricky Bell     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0229n.06	Paul House v. Ricky Bell     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville
08a0230n.06	USA v. Swift     Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City
08a0231n.06	USA v. Conner     Northern District of Ohio at Youngstown
08a0232n.06	Degussa Admixtures, v. Burnett     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids
08a0233n.06	USA v. Gleason     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0234n.06	Vuktilaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0235n.06	USA v. Finnell     Eastern District of Kentucky at Covington
08a0236n.06	USA v. Manns     Eastern District of Kentucky at Pikeville
08a0237n.06	Leasure v. AA Advantage     Western District of Kentucky at Paducah
08a0238n.06	USA v. Hammon     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland
08a0239n.06	Hall v. Clarksville Cty     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0240n.06	Zantello v. Shelby Township     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0241n.06	Kalaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0242n.06	Stenaj v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0243n.06	Danner v. Bd. Of Prof. Res.     Middle District of Tennessee
08a0244n.06	Barry v. Noble Metal     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0245n.06	Ferron v. Zoomego Inc.     Southern District of Ohio at Columbus
08a0246n.06	Keybank Nat'l Ass'n v. Leff     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit
08a0247n.06	Thomas v. Avon Products     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0248n.06	Alternative Enter v. USA     Eastern District of Michigan at Flint
08a0249n.06	Gordon v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0250n.06	USA v. Young     Western District of Tennessee at Memphis
08a0251n.06	Early v. Toyota Motor Corp     Eastern District of Kentucky at Frankfort
08a0253n.06	DeJesus v. Lafler     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit

US 6th Cir. Decisions for Week of Apr. 28 - May 2, 2008

CA6 Home

PUBLISHED OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0167p.06 2008/04/29	Johnson v. Bell     Middle District of Tennessee at Nashville
08a0168p.06 2008/04/29	Gibson v. Moskowitz     Western District of Michigan at Grand Rapids SUTTON, Circuit Judge. Ozy Vaughn, a mentally disabled inmate, died from severe dehydration after being held for several days in a 90 to 100 degree observation room. A jury determined that Dr. David Moskowitz’s deliberate indifference and medical malpractice caused Vaughn’s death and awarded his estate $2 million in compensatory damages (later reduced to $1.5 million) and $3 million in punitive damages. We affirm in part and reverse in part.
08a0169p.06 2008/05/01	MI Div Monument v. MI Cemetery, et al     Eastern District of Michigan at Detroit RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. This case involves allegations of anticompetitive behavior in the market for burial monuments in the state of Michigan. Three independent monument builders and a nonprofit trade association of monument builders—the Michigan Division of the Monument Builders of North America—(collectively, the Builders) filed the present lawsuit against 20 cemetery operators and the Michigan Cemetery Association (collectively, the Cemeteries). The lawsuit alleges that the Cemeteries are engaged in (1) an illegal tying arrangement, in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, (2) an illegal conspiracy to restrain competition and monopolize trade, also in violation of § 1 of the Sherman Act, (3) an illegal conspiracy to restrain trade, in violation of § 2 of the Sherman Act, and (4) violations of the Michigan Prepaid Funeral and Cemetery Sales Act, M.C.L. § 328.225. The district court dismissed the Builders’ claims after concluding that the proposed geographic market as set forth in the complaint was too narrow as a matter of law. Subsequently, the district court denied motions for sanctions against the Builders that were filed by several of the cemetery operators. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court on the merits of the antitrust claims, but VACATE its denial of sanctions and REMAND the case for further proceedings on that issue.
08a0170p.06 2008/05/02	Savedoff v. Access Group, Inc.     Northern District of Ohio at Cleveland CLAY, Circuit Judge. In this diversity class action, brought pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) (2006), Defendant Access Group, Inc. (“Access Group”) appeals the district court’s denial of Access Group’s motion for summary judgment and its grant of Plaintiff Jill B. Savedoff’s (“Savedoff”) motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability for Savedoff’s breach of contract claims. For the reasons that follow, we AFFIRM in part and REVERSE in part the judgment of the district court, and REMAND the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.
08a0171p.06 2008/05/02	USA v. Blair     Eastern District of Tennessee at Knoxville

NOT RECOMMENDED FOR FULL-TEXT PUBLICATION OPINIONS

Opinion	Short Title/District
08a0224n.06	USA v. Beach     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville PER CURIAM. Ronald Beach pleaded guilty to one count of knowingly transporting and shipping child pornography in interstate commerce, see 18 U.S.C. § 2252(a)(1), and to one count of knowingly receiving child pornography that has traveled in interstate commerce, see id. § 2252(a)(2). The district court sentenced Beach to 96 months’ imprisonment, varying downward from a guidelines range of 210–240 months. The government appealed. Because the district court did not exceed its discretion in granting this variance, see Gall v. United States, 128 S. Ct. 586, 597 (2007); United States v. Grossman, 513 F.3d 592, 596 (6th Cir. 2008), we affirm.
08a0225n.06	Shane v. Bunzl Dist USA Inc     Western District of Kentucky at Louisville SUTTON, Circuit Judge. When Joe Shane first appealed his contract claim to this court, we affirmed the district court in all respects save one: We remanded Shane’s request to file a third amended complaint because the court gave no explanation for denying the motion. On remand, the district court provided an explanation for denying the motion, one that lies within the range of discretion given to the district courts over matters of this sort. We affirm.
08b0009n.06	In re: Michael Nowak v.     U.S. Bankruptcy Court - Akron
08a0226n.06	Carpenter v. City of Franklin     Southern District of Ohio at Cincinnati
08a0227n.06	Paul v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0228n.06	Borbodoeva v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals
08a0228n.06	Borbodoeva v. Mukasey     Board of Immigration Appeals