Apr 14 2026
6th Cir. 25-3722 Published

Morgan v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for the Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, ruling that an employer has no duty to engage in the interactive process or provide accommodations when an employee has not requested them. The court held that an employee who disputes a medical finding of disability and insists they are fit for duty cannot later claim discrimination for failure to accommodate.

Apr 14 2026
11th Cir. 9:25-cv-81124-AMC Per Curiam

Corry E. Pearson v. Equifax Information Services LLC, Experian Information Solutions, Inc., Trans Union, LLC, CitiBank, N.A., United Collection Bureau, Inc.

The Eleventh Circuit dismissed Corry Pearson's appeal sua sponte because the district court's order was not final. The appellate court lacks jurisdiction to review a partial dismissal order that leaves claims against one defendant pending without Rule 54(b) certification.

Apr 10 2026
6th Cir. 25-3651 Published

Rondell Hooks v. Hamilton County Board of County Commissioners, et al.

The Sixth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for defendants in an excessive-force suit because the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court held that the Prison Litigation Reform Act bars litigation when an inmate has not filed a standard grievance or provided evidence of an informal one in the district court.

Apr 2 2026
5th Cir. 25-60109 Per Curiam

Washington v. Cain

The Fifth Circuit affirmed the dismissal of a prison employee's civil rights suit, holding that she lacked Article III standing to challenge prosecutorial decisions. The court modified the judgment to dismiss the claims without prejudice, noting that federal courts cannot supervise criminal investigations or second-guess the vigor of prosecutions.

Apr 2 2026
11th Cir. 7:23-cv-00114-WLS-ALS Per Curiam

PAUL GEORGE BETTENCOURT v. UNIT MANAGER DELISHA BRYANT Individual and Official Capacity

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed the dismissal of an inmate's Eighth Amendment claim because he failed to exhaust administrative remedies under the Prison Litigation Reform Act. The court held that the prison's grievance process remained available to the plaintiff despite his inability to use writing utensils and a limit on pending grievances.