Bickerstaff v. Cuyahoga County et al
| Brenda Bickerstaff |
| Cuyahoga County, Michael C. O'Malley, Clifford Pinkney, City of Cleveland, Daniel J. McCandless, Delonzo Goshen, Donald Nuti, Timothy McKenzie and John Doe |
| 1:2018cv01142 |
| May 17, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Cleveland Office |
| Cuyahoga |
| Christopher A. Boyko |
| 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
218
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the reasons stated in this Order, the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation (Doc. No. 207 ) is ADOPTED IN PART and REJECTED IN PART, as follows. The Court REJECTS the Report & Recommendation to t he extent it recommends that Defendant McCandless be denied qualified immunity with respect to Plaintiff's federal malicious prosecution claim. The Court ADOPTS the Report & Recommendation in all other respects, as set forth herein. Accordingly, Defendant McCandless' Objection is GRANTED and the Officer Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. No. 187 ) is GRANTED. Judge Pamela A. Barker on 9/8/2022. (P,K)
|
|
Filing
155
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For all the reasons set forth this order, Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. No. 152 ) is DENIED. Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. Nos. 148 ) is also DENIED. The June 2020 Report and Recommendation of Mag istrate Judge Parker (Doc. No. 146) is ADOPTED, and Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (Doc. Nos. 102 , 105 ) are GRANTED. Defendants Cuyahoga County and the City of Cleveland are, therefore, DISMISSED from the instant action. The following clai ms remain pending against the Officer Defendants: (1) malicious prosecution (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (2) civil conspiracy (42 U.S.C. § 1983); (3) abuse of process (42 U.S.C. § 1983); and (4) infliction of emotional distress (state law). Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 9/21/2020. (L,Ja)
|
|
Filing
144
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth in this order, Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. No. 117 , 141 ) to Magistrate Judge Parker's January 2, 2020 and April 8, 2020 Orders are without merit and overruled. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 6/5/2020. (L,Ja)
|
|
Filing
142
Memorandum Opinion and Order: For the reasons set forth in this order, the Court finds that the Magistrate Judge's Order denying Plaintiff's Motion for Voluntary Recusal is neither clearly erroneous or contrary to law. Plaintiff's Objection (Doc. No. 132 ) is overruled. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 4/15/2020. (L,Ja)
|
|
Filing
97
Memorandum Opinion and Order. For reasons set forth in this order, The Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Parker 87 is therefore ADOPTED with the sole exception that the Court finds that Plaintiffs Supplemental Brief (Doc. No. 69) and Sur-replies (Doc. Nos. 77, 83) should be marked on the docket as stricken. The County Defendants' Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 41) is GRANTED, and the John Doe Assistant County Prosecutor Defendants are sua sponte DISMISSED. The City of Cleveland and Officer Defendants Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (Doc. No. 43) is GRANTED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART. Entered by Judge Pamela A. Barker on 10/21/2019. (L,Ja)
|
|
Filing
50
Order: The County Defendants' 42 motion to stay discovery is DENIED in part with regard to initial disclosures and GRANTED in part with respect to all other discovery. The County Defendants shall make their initial disclosures on or before 4/19/2019. Magistrate Judge Thomas M. Parker on 4/8/2019. (D,JJ)
|
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.
