Lane v. City of Pickerington, Personnel Appeals Board et al
| Paul Lane |
| City of Pickerington, Personnel Appeals Board, City of Pickerington, Mitch O'Brien, Michael D. Taylor and Linda Fersch |
| 2:2011cv00966 |
| October 28, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Columbus Office |
| FAIRFIELD |
| Mark R. Abel |
| Algenon L. Marbley |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
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
106
ORDER DISMISSING CASE. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 4/7/2017. (agm)
|
|
Filing
104
ORDER granting 67 Motion for Summary Judgment; granting in part and denying in part 69 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying 79 Motion to Strike ; denying as moot 88 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 11/30/2016. (agm)
|
|
Filing
77
OPINION AND ORDER granting in part and denying in part 66 Motion in Limine; denying 71 Motion in Limine; granting 76 Motion for Hearing to the extent that Mr. Lane seeks leave to file a sur-reply, and the arguments raised in the motion constitute his sur-reply and were considered by this Court in ruling on the pending motions. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P. Kemp on 9/9/2015. (agm)
|
|
Filing
52
JUDGMENT in favor of Defendants City of Pickerington, et al., against Paul Lane Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Abel on 8/20/13. (sh1)
|
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.
