Goodwin v. City of Cleveland, Ohio et al
| Elizabeth Goodwin |
| City of Cleveland, Ohio, Scott Aldridge and Bryan Myers |
| 1:2015cv00027 |
| January 7, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Cleveland Office |
| Cuyahoga |
| Donald C. Nugent |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
81
Memorandum and Order that Defendants Scott Aldrich and Bryan Myers' 77 Motion for extension of time until September 28, 2016, to answer is Denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh on 9/6/16. (M,De)
|
|
Filing
48
Memorandum Opinion and Order . Plaintiff and Defendants' motions 41 and 47 are hereby granted in part and denied in part. The Court finds that the plaintiff's position will not be prejudiced by an additional short delay to, hopefully, allow for the completion of the criminal investigation. However, if the investigation is not complete by September 1. 2016, the stay will lift automatically and Officers Aldridge and Meyers will be required to file their responsive pleadings no later than September 14, 2016. Judge Donald C. Nugent 5/4/16(C,KA)
|
|
Filing
44
Memorandum Opinion and Order Denying 39 Cuyahoga County Sheriff's Office's Motion to quash Plaintiff's subpoena and for Protective Order. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh on 4/20/16. (M,De)
|
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 Northern 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.
