Levy v. Macy's (Sacramento)

Levy v. Macy's (Sacramento)

Plaintiff:	Amanda U. Levy
Defendant:	Macy's (Sacramento)
Case Number:	1:2013cv00147
Filed:	March 4, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Cincinnati Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	Michael R. Barrett
Presiding Judge:	Karen L. Litkovitz
Nature of Suit:	Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1332
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
October 22, 2013	Filing 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the complaint be Dismissed re 10 . Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend/supplement the complaint 24 27 be Denied. Defendant's motion to strike the second amended complaint 20 and plaintiff's mo tion for relief on a certain date 14 , revised motion for relief 15 , and motion to strike the motion to dismiss and receive court documents via email 25 be Denied as moot. Plaintiff be enjoined from filing any future civil actions in the Sourth ern District of Ohio unless the complaint is first certified as non-frivilous by an attorney in good standing in this Court or the jurisdiction in which he or she is admitted. The Clerk of Court should be directed to reject any complaint from plaint iff unless she complies with the Court's pre-filing certification instructions and pays the full filing fee. Any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith, and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 11/8/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/22/2013. (art)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 22, 2013

Filing 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the complaint be Dismissed re 10 . Plaintiff's motions for leave to amend/supplement the complaint 24 27 be Denied. Defendant's motion to strike the second amended complaint 20 and plaintiff's mo tion for relief on a certain date 14 , revised motion for relief 15 , and motion to strike the motion to dismiss and receive court documents via email 25 be Denied as moot. Plaintiff be enjoined from filing any future civil actions in the Sourth ern District of Ohio unless the complaint is first certified as non-frivilous by an attorney in good standing in this Court or the jurisdiction in which he or she is admitted. The Clerk of Court should be directed to reject any complaint from plaint iff unless she complies with the Court's pre-filing certification instructions and pays the full filing fee. Any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith, and therefore deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 11/8/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/22/2013. (art)

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: Levy v. Macy's (Sacramento)
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Macy's (Sacramento)
Represented By:	John M Dunn
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 ]
Plaintiff: Amanda U. Levy
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?