Easterling v. Manning

Easterling v. Manning

Plaintiff:	Warren Easterling
Defendant:	James L Manning, Judge
Case Number:	3:2015cv00058
Filed:	February 13, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Dayton Office
County:	MONTGOMERY
Presiding Judge:	Michael J Newman
Presiding Judge:	Thomas M Rose
Nature of Suit:	Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1985
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
May 11, 2015	Filing 12 ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. DOC. 11 . Upon review of Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment the Court does not find that any colorable allegation of misrepresentation, fraud or other misconduc t that could merit Rule 60(b)(3) relief. Having no "clear and convincing" evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other miscoduct in this case, Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment 11 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 5/11/15. (ep)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
March 26, 2015	Filing 9 ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (RULE 65A) AND WAIVER OF SECURITY (RULE 65C). DOC. 3 , GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, DOC. 5 , DENYING MOTION TO OVERRULE, DOC. 7 , FINDING MOOT MOTION FOR DISCOVERY, DOC. 8 , AND TERMINATING CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 3/25/15. (ep)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 11, 2015

Filing 12 ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT. DOC. 11 . Upon review of Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment the Court does not find that any colorable allegation of misrepresentation, fraud or other misconduc t that could merit Rule 60(b)(3) relief. Having no "clear and convincing" evidence of fraud, misrepresentation, or other miscoduct in this case, Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment 11 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 5/11/15. (ep)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

March 26, 2015

Filing 9 ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF (RULE 65A) AND WAIVER OF SECURITY (RULE 65C). DOC. 3 , GRANTING MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM, DOC. 5 , DENYING MOTION TO OVERRULE, DOC. 7 , FINDING MOOT MOTION FOR DISCOVERY, DOC. 8 , AND TERMINATING CASE. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 3/25/15. (ep)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Easterling v. Manning
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Warren Easterling
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: James L Manning, Judge
Represented By:	Mary E Montgomery
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?