must make a significant showing of sleep impairment before he can show that a substantial limitation exists. See, e.g., Swanson, 268 F.3d at 316 (“While less than five hours sleep is not optimal, it is not significantly restricted in comparison to the average person in the general population.”); Boerst v. Gen. Mills Operations, Inc., 25 Fed.Appx. 403, 407 (6th Cir.2002) (“Getting between two and four hours of sleep a night, while inconvenient, simply lacks the kind of severity we require of an ailment before we will say that the ailment qualifies as a substantial limitation.”). No less importantly, the courts consider an individual’s ability to sleep after accounting for the mitigating effect of any medication prescribed for the condition. See Sutton, 527 U.S. at 488, 119 S.Ct. 2139 (<HOLDING>). Greathouse offers no evidence of the precise
holding that reference to ordinance is not improper reference to an external document because injunction sufficiently describes the act sought to be enjoined and reference to the ordinance as stated in the injunction is merely to give further notice as to the enjoined conduct but the reference was unnecessary to give the appellants sufficient notice of that conduct holding that a single implicit reference to the email in which the complaint makes no explicit reference to nor does it quote at all from is insufficient to establish that the email was incorporated by reference into the complaint holding that if property description is to be supplied by writing to which reference is made in deed reference must be adequate to identify writing holding that the determination of whether an individual is disabled should be made with reference to measures that miti gate the individuals impairment including in this instance eyeglasses and contact lenses holding that disability determinations must be made with reference to corrective measures