Newsome v. Goldie, et al
| Frank Newsome |
| Greene Cty Sheriff and Robert Walton |
| 3:2000cv00372 |
| July 31, 2000 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| GREENE |
| Michael R Merz |
| Walter H Rice |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Defendant |
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
56
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGES REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 54 ); OVERRULING PETITIONERS RESPONSE THERETO (DOC. # 55 ); OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO REOPEN CASE (DOC. # 51 ), AND MOTION TO APPOINT COUNSEL (DOC. # 52 ); STRIKING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR SETTLEMENT (DOC. # 53 ); CAPTIONED CAUSE REMAINS CLOSED. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 11/26/2013. (jdf1)
|
|
Filing
54
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that Plaintiff Newsomes Motions to Reopen the Case, to Appoint Counsel, and for Settlement (Doc. Nos. 51, 52, 53) be denied. Objections to R&R due by 11/25/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/6/2013. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
50
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court has reviewed the Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on Motion for Reconsideration (Doc 49 ), to whom this case was referred pursuant to 28 USC 636(b), and noting that no objections have been filed thereto and that the time for filing such objections under Fed.R.Civ.P.72(b) expired on January 23, 2012, hereby ADOPTS said Report and Recommendations. Plaintiff's Motion to Reopen Case filed January 5, 2012 (Doc 48 ) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 01/24/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
49
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - re 48 - The Motion should be denied for at least the following reasons: 1. The Motion does not contain a certificate of service on the other parties to these cases. 2. The Motion contains allegations against a number of people who were not parties to these cases. 3. The Motion is grossly untimely. A motion for relief from judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 must be made within one year of the final judgment. In Case No. 3:99-cv-473, final judgment was entered almost ten years ago, on February 11, 2002. In Case No. 3:00-cv-372, final judgment was entered six days earlier, on February 5, 2002. 4. Inclusion of new allegations occurring within the last several months in a motion to reopen a long-closed case is a tra nsparent attempt of Plaintiff to gain access to this Court without paying the required filing fee, obtaining representation by an attorney, or obtaining the advance approval of the Chief Judge. Objections to R&R due by 1/23/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/4/2012. Objections to R&R due by 1/23/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/4/2012. (kje1)
|
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.
