Adams v. Ohio Department Of Developmental Disabilities et al
Plaintiff: Carlo Adams
Defendant: Ohio Department Of Developmental Disabilities, Ginnie Whisman and Sara Lawson
Case Number: 3:2014cv01526
Filed: July 11, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office: Toledo Office
County: Seneca
Presiding Judge: Jeffrey J. Helmick
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
September 2, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 26 Amended Memorandum Opinion and Order: I grant Adams leave to amend his complaint with respect to Count I, deny his request for leave with respect to Counts II and III as futile, deny his request for leave with respect to Counts IV and VI becau se he failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, and deny his request with respect to Count V as moot. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as to Count I; granted with respect to Counts II, III, IV, and VI; and denied as moot with respect to Count V. Defendants' motion also is granted with respect to all claims against Whisman and Lawson. Adams may proceed with his race discrimination claim (Count I) against the ODDD only. (Opinion Amended to reflect correction of a typographical error on page 4.) re 6 22 . Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 9/2/2015. (S,AL)
August 5, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 22 Memorandum Opinion and Order: I grant Adams leave to amend his complaint with respect to Count I, deny his request for leave with respect to Counts II and III as futile, deny his request for leave with respect to Counts IV and VI because he fa iled to exhaust his administrative remedies, and deny his request with respect to Count V as moot. Defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings is denied as to Count I; granted with respect to Counts II, III, IV, and VI; and denied as moot with respect to Count V. Defendants' motion also is granted with respect to all claims against Whisman and Lawson. Adams may proceed with his race discrimination claim (Count I) against the ODDD only. re 18 6 . Judge Jeffrey J. Helmick on 8/5/2015. (S,AL)
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 Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Adams v. Ohio Department Of Developmental Disabilities et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Carlo Adams
Represented By: Brian D. Spitz
Represented By: Christopher P. Wido
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: Ohio Department Of Developmental Disabilities
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: Ginnie Whisman
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: Sara Lawson
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?