Pippin v. Hamilton County Sheriff et al
| Tony D. Pippin |
| Hamilton County Sheriff and R. Mason |
| 1:2014cv00689 |
| August 28, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Cincinnati Office |
| HAMILTON |
| Michael R. Barrett |
| Stephanie K. Bowman |
| Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
25
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 23 Report and Recommendation; 5 is DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to prosecute pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 3/28/16. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 6 Report and Recommendation dismissing all claims but retaliation claims; USMS shall serve Complaint upon Hamilton County Sheriff Jim Neil and R.Mason Badge #199; Plaintiff shall serve all defendants wit h further pleadings or other documents considered for consideration by the Court and include certificate of service; Plaintiff shall inform the Court of any address changes. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 12/4/15. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Ohio Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
