Federal Judiciary

BOGGS, Chief Judge. This case stems from Kenton County?s enactment of a licensing ordinance that comprehensively regulates sexually oriented businesses within the County?s jurisdiction. A group of such businesses and their employees brought suit against the County under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and K.R.S. § 418.040, challenging the constitutionality of the Ordinance. Before the district court, the plaintiffs raised more than ten separate constitutional claims. Both sides moved for summary judgment, which the district court granted to the County.

The plaintiffs raise four issues on appeal. First, they claim that the Ordinance violates the First Amendment by barring entertainers from entering areas of an establishment occupied by customers within one hour of the entertainers? performing semi-nude on stage. Second, they claim that the Ordinance violates their rights under the Contracts Clause of Article I, § 10 of the Constitution. Third, they claim that the Ordinance?s judicial review provisions do not satisfy the First Amendment?s prompt-judicial-review requirements. Fourth, they claim that the Ordinance?s license fees are excessive, content-based taxes that violate the First Amendment. Following a brief recitation of the background of this case, we address each of the plaintiffs? challenges in turn, relating details relevant to each respective challenge when appropriate. Ultimately, we affirm the district court with respect to the first three challenges and we vacate and remand for further proceedings with respect to the fourth challenge.

RONALD LEE GILMAN, Circuit Judge. Dennis Imwalle became President of Reliance Medical Products, Inc. in 1990. He was fired in January of 2004, three months after he filed a charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) that alleged both age and national-origin discrimination. He was 62 years old at the time his employment ended. Imwalle?s suit in the district court resulted in a $185,000 jury verdict for compensatory damages based on his claim that he was fired in retaliation for filing his discrimination claims. The court subsequently awarded him approximately $250,000 more in attorney fees, costs, and prejudgment interest.

Reliance and its affiliated companies have appealed, challenging both the district court?s denial of their motion for judgment as a matter of law and the amount of the award for attorney fees and costs. For the reasons set forth below, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

Slyman v. Piqua
    Southern District of Ohio at Dayton

PER CURIAM. Plaintiff Jeffrey Slyman was appointed by defendant the City of Piqua as an Assistant Law Director. When defendant Grant Kerber, Piqua?s then-Current Law Director and plaintiff?s supervisor, discharged Slyman, Slyman sued, alleging identical procedural due process violations against both Piqua and Kerber. The defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting that plaintiff?s due process claims fail because he did not have a federally protected property interest in continued employment.

The district court agreed and granted defendants? motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff filed this timely appeal. Having had the benefit of oral argument and having carefully considered the record on appeal, we are not persuaded that a lengthy opinion is necessary. Accordingly, we AFFIRM reasons set forth in the well-reasoned opinion of the district court. See Slyman v. City of Piqua, 94 F. Supp. 2d 732 (S.D. Ohio. 2007).

BOYCE F. MARTIN, JR., Circuit Judge. Darlington Amadasu, proceeding pro se, appeals a district court order dismissing his civil complaint. He moves for a copy of the transcripts at the government?s expense, for a stay of the briefing schedule, and for miscellaneous relief. The defendants move to dismiss the appeal for lack of jurisdiction due to Amadasu?s failure to file objections to a magistrate judge?s report and recommendation. All motions were dimissed.