ORLANDO GONZÁLEZ TOMASINI JULIETTE IRIZARRY-MIRANDA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP GONZÁLEZ-IRIZARRY; K O G, Minor; V D R, Minor; S G I, Minor; M A R, Minor v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster; U...: ORLANDO GONZÁLEZ TOMASINI JULIETTE IRIZARRY-MIRANDA; CONJUGAL PARTNERSHIP GONZÁLEZ-IRIZARRY; K O G, Minor; V D R, Minor; S G I, Minor; M A R, Minor v. LOUIS DEJOY, Postmaster; U…

The First Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an employment discrimination lawsuit after finding the plaintiff committed witness tampering on the eve of trial. The court held that conditioning a custody agreement on a witness's refusal to testify constituted a fraud on the court warranting the severe sanction of dismissal.

BLUERADIOS, INC. v. HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.: BLUERADIOS, INC. v. HAMILTON, BROOK, SMITH & REYNOLDS, P.C.

The First Circuit reversed the district court's summary judgment in a legal malpractice suit, holding that a genuine issue of material fact exists regarding when the statute of limitations began to run. The court further ruled as a matter of law that an attorney-client relationship existed between the tech company and the law firm, rejecting the lower court's dismissal of the claims.

DREAMWORKS MOTORSPORTS, INC v. JONATHAN KLEIN

The Fourth Circuit affirmed a district court's remand of a contract dispute to state court because the defendant removed the case after the one-year statutory deadline had expired. The court held that the plaintiff's strategic delay in scheduling a hearing on a motion to amend the complaint did not constitute bad faith sufficient to excuse the untimely removal.

STEVEN L. ZIRKO v. CHERYL HANSEN

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for a nurse practitioner who discontinued a prisoner's medical shower permit. The court held that her decision did not constitute deliberate indifference under the Eighth Amendment because she relied on prison directives and the plaintiff's alternative access to showers.

PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA THRIFT PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES v. DENA LANGDON CHRISTINA COPISKEY, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of CARL W. KLEINFELDT and the...: PACKAGING CORPORATION OF AMERICA THRIFT PLAN FOR HOURLY EMPLOYEES v. DENA LANGDON CHRISTINA COPISKEY, as the Personal Representative of the Estate of CARL W. KLEINFELDT and the…

The Seventh Circuit reversed a district court ruling that applied the substantial compliance doctrine to validate a decedent's fax request to change a retirement beneficiary. The appellate court held that sending a fax did not constitute the positive action required by the plan's strict terms, leaving the ex-wife as the rightful primary beneficiary.

MARKANTHONY M. HARRIS v. JEREMY WILTZIUS

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for prison officials, holding that disciplinary segregation and a transfer to a maximum-security facility did not deprive the prisoner of a constitutionally protected liberty interest. Because no liberty interest was implicated, the court declined to rule on whether the disciplinary hearing procedures were constitutionally deficient.

JESSIE HATCHER v. JOHN JONES

The Seventh Circuit affirmed summary judgment for prison medical staff and their employer, ruling that delays in post-operative care did not constitute deliberate indifference to a prisoner's serious medical needs. The court held that providers acted within professional discretion and that the plaintiff failed to prove an unconstitutional policy by the employer.

FODIES MCBRIDE, SR v. ALLSTATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Seventh Circuit dismissed an appeal filed by a pro se litigant who failed to argue that the district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims. The appellate court deemed the appeal frivolous because the appellant did not engage with the court's dispositive determination that his complaints failed to allege violations of federal law or establish diversity jurisdiction.

23-1451: HOLSTEIN v. COLLINS [ERRATA], Nonprecedential

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA v. GARY LEE HODGES

The Fourth Circuit affirmed Gary Lee Hodges's sentence for attempted enticement of a minor, rejecting his argument that sentencing enhancements do not apply when the victim is a fictitious person created by law enforcement. The court held that the term 'minor' in the Sentencing Guidelines is ambiguous and that the Guidelines' commentary defining 'minor' to include fictitious persons is entitled to deference.