Memorandum Opinion and Order

Presently pending before the Court is Plaintiffs’ “Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction Regarding Defendants’ Prevention, Management, and Treatment of COVID-19.” Mot. for Prelim. Inj., ECF No. 161. Defendants timely filed a Response in Opposition, Resp. in Opp’n, ECF No. 168, and Plaintiffs did the same with their Reply, Reply, ECF No. 173. The parties also provided supplemental information to the Court, which has all been filed under seal. See Exs., ECF -2-  No. 181. The Court held a hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion on April 6, 2020 and determined that the issues had been adequately presented through the parties’ submissions and oral argument, and therefore dispensed with the need for further witness testimony. Video Mot. Hr’g, ECF No. 180. For the reasons set forth below—as well as for those announced on the record at the hearing—the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion.

Memorandum Decision and Order

Responding to a 9-1-1 call, Brian Donahoe and Brandon Pauley of the Putnam County Sheriff’s Department stopped Michael Walker while he was walking down a road openly carrying an AR-15-style rifle. Walker alleges Donahoe seized him in violation of the Fourth Amendment and that Pauley is liable for not intervening. The parties now cross-move for summary judgment. Because Donahoe had reasonable suspicion to stop Walker and run a criminal history check, the Court grants summary judgment in the defendants’ favor.

Memorandum Decision and Order

Pending before the court is Defendant Jason Buzzard’s objection to a four-level enhancement under United States Sentencing Guidelines (“U.S.S.G.”) § 2K2.1(b)(6)(B). In accordance with my ruling at the January 17, 2020 Sentencing Hearing and for the reasons stated herein, the objection is SUSTAINED.

Order

Pending before the court is Plaintiff’s Motion and Memorandum of Law Determining Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC’s Litigation Purchase Agreement is Unenforceable as a Violation of Public Policy. [ECF No. 67]. The instant lawsuit alleges negligence, strict liability and other claims against defendant Boston Scientific Corporation (“BSC”)1 related to the implantation of pelvic mesh, which was allegedly manufactured by BSC. In the Motion filed by plaintiff, plaintiff seeks a determination by this court that a contract entered into by plaintiff and Prospect Funding Partners, a litigation funding company and nonparty to the instant litigation, is unenforceable as a violation of public policy. Plaintiff’s Motion must be denied. Plaintiff’s claim related to Prospect Funding Holdings, LLC is a separate and distinct contract dispute between plaintiff and a nonparty to the instant action. Accordingly, the court ORDERS that Plaintiff’s Motion is DENIED.