Opinion ID: 2791805
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: conclusion

Text: Based upon the foregoing, the judgment of the Superior Court is hereby AFFIRMED. 63 See 11 Del. C. § 9200 et seq. 64 Appellants’ Amended Opening Brief criticizes the Superior Court for not addressing “the plethora of cited deficiencies.” In particular, the Appellants state that they “cited no fewer than sixteen violations of the LEOBOR statute in their application for writ or [sic] mandamus,” and that the trial court “failed to address all but seven of these allegations in its order granting summary judgment.” Yet Appellants fail to address with any specificity any of the allegedly ignored “plethora of deficiencies” in their briefing before this Court. Moreover, the Superior Court’s order is more fairly read as having considered, but rejected, all of Appellants’ claims. See Brittingham I, 2011 WL 2650691, at  (“While Plaintiffs are guaranteed a range of protections under LEOBOR, they have not shown that Defendants violated those protections by failing to perform a ministerial duty. Nor have they shown any procedural or substantive due process violations. The Court finds no violation of Plaintiffs rights under LEOBOR or other reason to interject itself in the routine disciplinary proceedings of the GPD.” (footnote omitted)). 21