With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". as a matter of law, and the Court declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiffs remaining state law claim. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec. 45, is GRANTED IN PART, and Defendant’s Cross Motion, Ct. Rec. 53, is DENIED IN PART, on the issues of whether Title III of the ADA applies to Defendant NCAA, whether Plaintiffs learning disability constitutes a disability protected by the ADA, and whether a waiver of the 75/25 Rule would be a reasonable modification to the NCAA’s eligibility rules. 2. Plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment, Ct. Rec. 45, is DENIED IN PART, on the issue of whether Plaintiffs failure to meet the NCAA’s eligibility criteria resulted from his disability and thus whether t d 580, 583 (6th Cir.1995) (<HOLDING>). Other courts have held, however, that the

A: holding that hockey organization was not sufficiently linked to a place so not subject to ada
B: holding ada claim was discharged
C: holding that defendants were not in control and therefore were not supervisors and not subject to liability under  1983
D: holding that national football league was not a place and therefore not subject to ada
D.