Brown v. Malicki et al
| David A. Brown |
| Malicki and Springfield Police Department |
| 3:2008cv00141 |
| April 25, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Civil Rights: Other Office |
| CLARK |
| Michael R Merz |
| Thomas M Rose |
| Defendant |
| Federal Question |
| 42:1983 Civil Rights Act |
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
40
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 5/14/09. (bev1, )
|
|
Filing
39
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING STAY - Plaintiff's Motion to Stay (Doc. No. 38) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/12/2009. (kopf1, )
|
|
Filing
37
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is recommended that Defendant's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings should be granted. Plaintiff's Motion to Strike is hereby denied. The Motion for Summary Judgment should be granted and all federal claims against Officer Malicki dismissed with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 5/7/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 4/20/2009. (kopf1, )
|
|
Filing
32
DECISION AND ORDER ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR COMPLIANCE - It is hereby ORDERED:1. Plaintiff asserts that 34 photographs were taken of 15 Southern and that copies of only 13 of those have been produced to him. If there exists an additional 21 pho tographs, Defendants shall forthwith furnish copies to Plaintiff. 2. If Defendants know which officers entered the front of 15 Southern on March 30, 2006, they shall identify those officers to Plaintiff forthwith. 3. Defendants shall file with the Court an account of what they have done in response to this Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 4/9/2009. (kopf1, )
|
|
Filing
27
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTIONS FOR DISCOVERY -It is ORDERED that Defendants treat the Motion for Discovery as if it were an interrogatory asking for identification of the officers that entered the front of the house at 15 Southern on March 30, 2006, a nd respond accordingly. It also appears that the 34 photographs taken at the house are relevant. Defendants' counsel shall therefore treat the Motion for Correction of the Record as if it were a request for production of documents under Fed. R. Civ. P. 34 and respond accordingly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 2/25/2009. (kopf1, )
|
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.
