alone with no visual stimulus.” (Dkt. No. 75, Ex. 1). The University, in contrast, argues that the plaintiff has failed to establish that he has a qualifying disability and that he was subject to discrimination because of that disability. It further maintains that even assuming that the plaintiffs disorders constitute “disabilities”, the plaintiff has failed to establish that he was qualified to continue enrollment in the University’s medical school program. This Court is inclined to agree. First, aside from his own allegations, there is no evidence in the record that the plaintiffs “visual learning” disability exists or that it imposes any limits on him or limits any of'his major life activities. See Mosley v. Potter, No. H-05-2816, 2007 WL 1100470, at *4 (S.D.Tex. April 11, 2007) (<HOLDING>). The ADA defines “disability” as “a mental or
recognizing sleeping as major life activity recognizing that to establish a disability a plaintiff must prove a substantial limit with specific evidence that his particular impairment substantially limits his particular major life activity holding that restrictions that plaintiff not lift more than twentyfive pounds or bend repetitively are not evidence of a permanent impairment that substantially limits any major life activity holding that reproduction is not a major life activity holding that a lifting restriction of ten pounds did not constitute a physical impairment that substantially limited a major life activity