Bradley Batross v. Muskingum County, OH, et al
| BRADLEY BATROSS |
| MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OH, MUSKINGUM COUNTY COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, MUSKINGUM COUNTY COURT OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS, MUSKINGUM COUNTY ADULT & CHILD PROTECTIVE SERVICES, CITY OF ZANESVILLE, OH, SOUTH ZANESVILLE, OH POLICE DEPARTMENT, TANDRA HAMPP, LEVI HAMPP and MUSKINGUM COUNTY, OH PROSECUTOR OFFICE |
| 25-3292 |
| April 16, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit |
| Civil Rights: Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 8, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 13
ORDER filed to dismiss for want of prosecution for failure to pay filing fee. No mandate to issue. (ASM) [Entered: 08/08/2025 08:25 AM]
|
| Filing 12 RULING LETTER SENT to extend time to pay fee. The appellant has 30 days to pay the appellate filing fee to the U.S. District Court or file a motin for pauper status in this court. (SSS) [Entered: 07/01/2025 03:50 PM] |
|
Filing 11
ORDER filed: This court directed Batross to show cause why his appeal should not be dismissed on the basis of a late notice of appeal. Batross did not respond in this court. However, on April 25, 2025, he filed a motion for an extension of time to appeal in the district court. On June 30, 2025, the district court granted that motion. Batrosss notice of appeal, filed on April 14, 2025, is therefore timely, and this court has jurisdiction. Accordingly, the show-cause order is WITHDRAWN [ # 3 ]. Julia Smith Gibbons, Circuit Judge. (SSS) [Entered: 07/01/2025 03:46 PM]
|
| Filing 10 Copy of District Court Order filed 06/30/2025 granting Motion for Extension of Time; denying Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis. (SSS) [Entered: 07/01/2025 08:13 AM] |
| Filing 9 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Name of Counsel: Aaron M. Glasgow ; City of Zanesville, OH makes the following disclosure: 1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? NO 2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, with a financial interest in the outcome? NO Certificate of Service: 05/14/2025. [25-3292] (AMG) [Entered: 05/14/2025 12:35 PM] |
| Filing 8 APPEARANCE filed for Appellee City of Zanesville, OH by Aaron M. Glasgow. Certificate of Service: 05/14/2025. [25-3292] (AMG) [Entered: 05/14/2025 12:34 PM] |
| Filing 7 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT. Name of Counsel: Keona Padgett ; South Zanesville, OH Police Department makes the following disclosure: 1. Is said party a subsidiary or affiliate of a publicly owned corporation? No 2. Is there a publicly owned corporation, not a party to the appeal, with a financial interest in the outcome? No Certificate of Service: 05/09/2025. [25-3292] (KRP) [Entered: 05/09/2025 01:47 PM] |
| Filing 6 APPEARANCE filed for Appellee South Zanesville, OH Police Department by Keona Padgett. Certificate of Service: 05/09/2025. [25-3292] (KRP) [Entered: 05/09/2025 01:38 PM] |
| Filing 5 The case manager for this case is now: Jill E. Colyer. (ACB) [Entered: 05/03/2025 02:57 PM] |
| Filing 4 Update fee status change to pending in the district court. (SSS) [Entered: 04/29/2025 12:02 PM] |
| Filing 3 SHOW CAUSE order filed: It is therefore ordered that Batross show cause in writing not later than 21 days from the date of this order why the appeal should not be dismissed for failure to comply with 28 U.S.C. 2107(a) and Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 4(a). Response due by 05/09/2025 for Bradley Batross. (SSS) [Entered: 04/18/2025 02:13 PM] |
| Filing 2 The case manager for this case is: Sharday Swain (SSS) [Entered: 04/16/2025 03:20 PM] |
| Filing 1 Civil Case Docketed. Notice filed by Appellant Mr. Bradley Batross. Transcript needed: n. (SSS) [Entered: 04/16/2025 03:10 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
