CLAY, Circuit Judge. In 2015, a predecessor to Defendant Washtenaw County Community Mental Health modified the methodology through which it allocated funding to individuals with disabilities receiving community living support services pursuant to a Medicaid waiver received by the State of Michigan. Plaintiffs, five individuals receiving those services, together with the Washtenaw Association for Community Advocacy, challenge that methodology in this case against Defendants the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services, Community Mental Health Partnership of Southeast Michigan, Washtenaw County Community Mental Health, and the directors of these organizations. In particular, Plaintiffs assert that by implementing or allowing implementation of this new methodology, Defendants violated provisions of the Medicaid Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1396a(a)(8), (a)(10)(A), (a)(10)(B), 1396n(c)(2)(A) and (C); Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (“ADA”), 42 U.S.C. § 12132; § 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, 29 U.S.C. § 794; the Michigan Mental Health Code, Mich. Comp. Laws § 330.1722; and the terms of Michigan’s Medicaid Habilitation Supports Waiver and the contracts implementing it. The district court dismissed Plaintiffs’ claims in full.

For the reasons set forth in this opinion, we REVERSE the district court’s decision and REMAND for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

BERNICE BOUIE DONALD, Circuit Judge. In this case, Charles Troutman, a pretrial detainee at the Louisville Metro Department of Corrections (“LMDC”), committed suicide after jail officials placed him in solitary confinement despite a recent suicide attempt. Plaintiff Stephanie Troutman (“Stephanie”), Charles’ daughter and administrator of his estate, filed this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging that the various defendants—(1) the classification officer, James Cox (“Cox”); (2) the LMDC Director, Mark Bolton (“Bolton”); and (3) the municipality itself, Louisville-Jefferson County Metro Government (“Louisville Metro”)—were deliberately indifferent to the serious medical needs of her father. Stephanie appeals the district court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of all three defendants. For the reasons explained below, we REVERSE and REMAND the district court’s order granting summary judgment in favor of Cox. We AFFIRM the grant of summary judgment in favor of Bolton and Louisville- Jefferson County Metro Government.

SUHRHEINRICH, Circuit Judge. In this wire fraud and mail fraud conspiracy case against employees of a multibillion-dollar gas company, Pilot Flying J (Pilot), the district court allowed the government to play audio recordings in which one of the defendants, Pilot President Mark Hazelwood, is heard using deeply offensive racist and misogynistic language. The district court admitted the recordings on the theory that if the defendant was reckless enough to use language that could risk public outrage against the company, he was a “bad businessman,” and as a bad businessman, he was also reckless enough to commit fraud. This is vintage bad character evidence—and precisely the type of reasoning the Federal Rules of Evidence forbid.

The use of the audio recordings in this case jumped the rails of those rules. First, none of the Rules of Evidence support the recordings’ admissibility. Second, and more importantly, even if somehow otherwise admissible, the recordings are a textbook violation of Rule 403, because the risk of unfair prejudice eviscerates any purported probative value. For these reasons, we reverse the convictions of all three defendants.

LARSEN, Circuit Judge. Johnny Gatewood filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to vacate his life sentence. The district court denied the motion as untimely. On appeal, the government now concedes that Gatewood’s motion was timely but maintains that his claim is nevertheless barred by procedural default. We agree and AFFIRM the judgment of the district court.

CHAD A. READLER, Circuit Judge. It is the rare federal complaint that is not preceded by an exchange of letters between the parties. Sometimes the letters identify common ground, more often they eschew it. Sometimes they are conciliatory, more often they are accusatory. Either way, their purpose is to help frame the parties’ dispute, posturing it either for settlement or litigation. But those correspondence are not equivalent to formal litigation. They are neither pleadings nor representations in court. And free of those burdens, parties often posture their claims with loose rhetorical flair better utilized outside the courtroom.

Yet today, one party seeks to raise the stakes for this familiar practice. Although the parties agree that their underlying contract affords each of them the opportunity to invoke arbitration, Plaintiff believes Defendants waived that right through their pre-trial “posturing” correspondence. The district court agreed and denied Defendants’ motion to compel arbitration. Because Defendants’ pre-trial communications were neither inconsistent with its arbitration right nor prejudicial to Plaintiff, they did not waive that right. We accordingly reverse the decision of the district court and remand the case for further proceedings.

Defendant, Trevor Rochel Cullom, Alias, appeals from the trial court’s decision to revoke his probation. After a review of the record, we determine that Defendant was denied due process during his revocation hearing. As a result, we reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a new hearing.

This appeal arises from a divorce. Brian Lee Higdon (“Husband”) filed for divorce from Aehui Higdon (“Wife”) in the Chancery Court for Rutherford County (“the Trial Court”). The parties executed a marital dissolution agreement (“the MDA”). The Trial Court approved the MDA and entered a Final Decree of Divorce. Wife later filed a motion pursuant to Tennessee Rule of Civil Procedure 60.02 seeking to have the MDA and Final Decree of Divorce set aside on grounds of mistake of fact, fraud, and fundamental unfairness. After a hearing at which both Husband and Wife testified, the Trial Court denied Wife’s motion. Wife appeals, arguing among other things that she was coerced into signing the MDA. Deferring to the Trial Court’s implicit credibility determinations, we do not find that Wife was coerced into signing the MDA. Wife failed to meet her burden of clear and convincing evidence that there was mistake of fact, fraud, or fundamental unfairness in the execution of the MDA. In sum, we discern no abuse of discretion in the Trial Court’s decision to deny Wife’s Rule 60.02 motion. We affirm.

Pro se appellant appeals the trial court’s entry of an order of protection that was entered against him. The appellant’s brief significantly fails to comply with Tennessee Rule of Appellate Procedure 27. Accordingly, we find that any issues on appeal are waived and we dismiss the appeal.

The Defendant, Lacy Lyndon Austin, appeals his convictions for possession of methamphetamine with the intent to sell or deliver within 1,000 feet of a school zone, possession of a firearm during the commission of a dangerous felony, possession of a firearm by a person convicted of a felony drug offense and a felony involving the use of force or violence, simple possession of marijuana, and possession of drug paraphernalia. The Defendant argues that (1) the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the evidence seized as a result of a traffic stop; (2) the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions; and (3) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a cell phone and photographs of text messages sent to the phone. Following our review, we affirm.

In this appeal regarding the proceeds of the decedent’s life insurance policy, the Interim Clerk and Master of the Shelby County Chancery Court (“trial court”) issued, pursuant to local rule, a “Notice and Recommendation for Sua Sponte Dismissal for Lack of Prosecution” after no activity concerning the case had occurred for over a year. The notice, which directed the parties to appear before the trial court on September 10, 2019, was not mailed to the defendant. Consequently, the defendant did not appear. Following the hearing, the trial court ordered a scheduling conference, at which the defendant also did not appear. During the scheduling conference, the trial court directed the plaintiffs to submit testimony and other evidence concerning the proceeds of the life insurance policy. Upon the plaintiffs’ request for a declaratory judgment, the trial court entered an order finding, inter alia, that the defendant had failed to appear. The court awarded proceeds of the life insurance policy to the plaintiffs and assessed costs against the defendant. The defendant has appealed. On appeal, the parties have stipulated that the defendant did not receive notice of the hearings. We therefore vacate the trial court’s order of final judgment and remand the case for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.