inferences therefrom without the necessity of drawing adverse inferences against each moving party, see Fed.R.Civ.P. 56. The facts of the case being established, the Court affords each party thirty minutes for final argument (not the usual ten minutes per party when hearing argument on a motion). In due course, the Court enters findings and rulings as required by Fe 3d 1139, 1146 (10th Cir. 2006) (affirming judgment in favor of defendants in 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action where disabled persons alleged that state failed to comply with reasonable promptness requirement of Medicaid by keeping them on waiting list for state's comprehensive residential services because "Medicaid statute does not require states to be service-providers” with Bryson v. Shumway, 308 F.3d 79, 88-89 (1st Cir.2002)) (<HOLDING>); Doe v. Chiles, 136 F.3d 709, 714, 717 (11th
holding that a state is not a person under 42 usc  1983 holding that suits under 42 usc  1983 do not override state immunity holding that plaintiffs have a cause of action under 42 usc  1983 where state created an experimental home and communitybased medical program but placed plaintiffs on the waiting list holding that plaintiffs had claim under 42 usc  1983 against state where state had created an intermediate care facility but placed plaintiffs on waiting list holding that plaintiffs who sought injunctive relief under 42 usc  1983 could get same relief in a state court mandamus action