Buckner v. Montgomery County Jobs and Family Services Division et al
| Lisa Buckner |
| Montgomery County Board of Commissioners and Montgomery County Jobs and Family Services Division |
| 3:2011cv00320 |
| September 7, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Timothy S. Black |
| Michael R Merz |
| Americans with Disabilities - Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 12101 |
| 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
102
DECISION AND ORDER - Plaintiff's "Second Attempt to Request a Transcript" (Doc. No. 101) is denied there is no oral testimony to transcribe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/8/2013. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
94
ORDER - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. No. 93) to the Court's Decision and Order (Doc. No. 91) granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment and ordering this case dismissed with prejudice. Because Pla intiff is proceeding pro se, she is entitled to liberal construction of her pleadings and the Court will construe her Objections as a motion to amend the judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 59. Defendants may respond and Plaintiff may reply within the time allowed by S. D. Ohio Civ. R. 7.2. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/18/2012. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
92
CLERK'S JUDGMENT with attached Notice of Disposal in favor of Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, Montgomery County Jobs and Family Services Division against Lisa Buckner. Case Terminated. Signed on 12/05/2012. (kf) Modified on 12/5/2012 to correct text (kf).
|
|
Filing
89
DECISION AND ORDER - At the conclusion of her Motion, Plaintiff again asks the Court to find Defendants in default for violation of the Rules of Civil Procedure and set a damages hearing. For reasons previously given, Defendant are not in default and that portion of the Motion is denied.Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/19/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
86
ORDER TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF UPON FILING OF A MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. You are hereby notified that Defendants filed with the Court on November 2, 2012, a motion for summary judgment in this case [Doc 85 ]. You should receive a copy of the motion d irectly from the Defendants. Under the rules of this Court (S.D. Ohio L.R. 7.2) you are allowed twenty-one days from the date of service (November 2, 2012) within which to file a response to this motion, plus an extra three days because of the way the motion was sent to you. Your response must be filed with the Court not later than November 26, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/02/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
74
ORDER SETTING HEARING - This case is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Compel (Doc. No. 73) which avers that Plaintiff has not yet complied with this Court's Order of July 30, 2012, that she answer Defendants' Interrogatories i n writing and under oath not later than August 15, 2012. This Motion is set for hearing in Courtroom No. 4, 200 West Second Street, at 1:30 p.m. on Wednesday, September 5, 2012. Plaintiff and Defendants' counsel are required to be present. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 8/27/2012. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
69
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - The Motion for Reconsideration is denied and Plaintiff is ordered to sign the medical releases forthwith and return them to Defendants' counsel. Plaintiff is cautioned that failure to obey this Order will result in sanctions, which may include a finding that she is in contempt of court and/or an order dismissing the case with prejudice. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 8/8/2012. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
67
DECISION AND ORDER re 65 64 66 Objection (non motion), filed by Lisa Buckner - The objection that the discovery is repetitive is overruled. Plaintiff's objection to signing the tendered medical releases is overruled. Plaintiff sh all respond to Defendants interrogatories in writing and under oath not later than August 15, 2012. Plaintiff shall execute and return the medical releases to Defendants counsel immediately. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 07/30/12. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
49
DECISION AND ORDER re 48 , 46 - The Court agrees with Plaintiff that WITNESS' must be qualified as experts prior to rendering any opinion based upon their professional competences. Defendants must supplement their disclosure of these witnesse s by providing the information about their expected testimony required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(c) not later than June 1, 2012. Also, Defendants will at trial have to lay a foundation for the testimony of each of these witnesses based on that person's personal observation of relevant facts. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 05/15/12. (pb1)(pltf)
|
|
Filing
41
DECISION AND ENTRY. Plaintiff's Notice of Motion for Compelling Further Answers to Interrogatories and Production Documents and For Sanctions (Doc. 34 ), is denied. To the extent that Plaintiff seeks sanctions pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 37, such motion is also denied. Because Plaintiff's newest Notice of Non-Compliance (Doc. 40 ) essentially repeats the arguments already dealt with above, it is also denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/29/2012. (mdf1)
|
|
Filing
39
DECISION AND ORDER - In Plaintiff's Reply/Opposition to Magistrate's Decision Not to Grant Summary Judgment to Plaintiff When Court Overruled Defendants' Motion to Dismiss on Conversion, she claims she is entitled to full summary judgm ent in her favor, granting the compensatory and punitive damages requested in the Complaint. Plaintiff is of course free to move for summary judgment if she wishes at any time up to the cut-off for dispositive motions, now set for November 2, 2012. But to the extent her Reply requests that relief, she is not entitled to it and it is denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/21/2012. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
37
DECISION AND ENTRY denying Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 30 ). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 3/8/2012. (mdf1)
|
|
Filing
31
ORDER TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF UPON FILING OF MOTION TO DISMISS OR MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT. You should receive a copy of the motion directly from the Defendants. Under the rules of this Court (S.D. Ohio L.R. 7.2) you are allowed twenty-one days from t he date of service (February 21, 2012) within which to file a response to this motion, plus an extra three days because of the way the motion was sent to you. Your response must be filed with the Court not later than February 24, 2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 02/01/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
27
DECISION AND ORDER REGARDING DISCOVERY granting 25 Motion to Compel. It is hereby ORDERED: 1. Fed. R. Civ. P. 5 notwithstanding, all requests for discovery (referred to by Plaintiff as "discovery tools") or responses to requests for disco very shall be filed with the Clerk. 2. Defendants shall respond to all of Plaintiff's currently outstanding discovery requests no later than February 15, 2012. 3. Plaintiff need not send the Court copies of documents sent to the Clerk. Each document sent to the Clerk is scanned and added to the docket so that the Court immediately has access to it. 4. No further relief will be granted on Plaintiffs Motion to Compel. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 01/25/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
24
DECISION AND ORDER. The Motion for Reconsideration 22 is GRANTED and the Court's Order striking Doc. No. 15 is VACATED. Plaintiff's Disclosures and any notices of deposition should not be filed unless upon further order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/10/2011. (mdf1)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER - striking 15 The document is stricken because it is a discovery request which is not permitted to be filed under Fed. R. Civ. P,5(d)(1). This Order is without any determination on the merits of any of the requests made because it is not app ropriate for the Court to do so at this time, since no one has made any request for court action. In other words, the striking of the document has not impact on the responsibility of the parties to res pond under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 12/2/2011. (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.
