Pullen v. Cool et al
| Terry Tyrone Pullen, Jr |
| William Cool, Cynthia Davis, David Warren, Linnea Mahlman, C/O Smith, C/O Dillow, C/O Pardis, C/O Gifford, C/O Cooper, Correctional Officer Frye, C/O Tabor, C/O Rodgers, C/O Riddick, C/O Grooms, C/O Clere, C/O Osborne, C/O Swaney, Mona Parvis, Sherry Wagner, Larry Greene, Johnson, C/O Englehardt, C/O Buckler, C/O Lawson, Nurse Barney, Allison Hocket, C/O Lincecum, C/O Ferguson, C/O Bear, John Doe, Unit Manager Oppie, C/O Boggs, C/O Bradly, Cuck Smith, C/O Distel, Unit Manager Nolan, Donald Morgan, Ohio Department of Rehabilitation and Correction, Case Manager Parker, C/O Miller, C/O Porter, C/O Butterbaugh and Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility |
| 1:2016cv00515 |
| May 2, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Cincinnati Office |
| SCIOTO |
| Michael R. Barrett |
| Karen L. Litkovitz |
| 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
97
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that defendant's 85 MOTION for Summary Judgment be Granted. Any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith. Objections to R&R due by 3/1/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 2/15/2019. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
95
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 80 Report and Recommendation granting 63 Motion to compel; denying 65 Motion to Strike; and granting 79 Motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 9/5/18. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER & REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: It is ORDERED that plaintiff's 63 Motion to compel is Granted as to plaintiff's request for answers to interrogatories. Defendants shall serve responses to the interrogatories on plaintiff, and file a notice certifying their compliance with this Order, within (10) days of the filing date of this Order. Plaintiff's 65 Motion to Strike is Denied. Plaintiff's 79 Motion to extend the dispositive motion deadline is Granted. The di spositive motion deadline is extended to 4/13/2018. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff's 71 MOTION for Issue of Service on defendants Jamie Gillum, Kory Rogers and Kody Johnson be Denied. ( Objections to R&R due by 3/16/2018). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 3/2/2018. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
75
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 64 Report and Recommendation denying 44 Motion for Extension of Time; denying 44 Motion for Extension of Time to Complete Discovery; denying 45 Motion for Preliminary Injunction; denying 58 M otion to Issue Service; Defendants C/O Dail, C/O Johnson, C/O Rodgers and C/O Ferguson are dismissed for lack of service. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 11/27/17. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
64
ORDER that plaintiff's 48 Motion for Extension of the discovery deadline is Granted. The discovery deadline is extended to 10/20/2017 and the dispositive motion deadline is extended to 11/10/2017. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff&# 039;s 45 MOTION for a temporary restraining order/preliminary injunction be Denied; plaintiff's 44 MOTION for Extension of Time to issue service be Denied and defendants C/O Dail, C/O Johnson, C/O Rodgers and C/O Ferguson be Dismissed fro m this case for lack of service under FRCP 4(m); and that plaintiff's 58 MOTION for Issue of Service on Jamie Gillum, Kory Rogers, Kory Johnson and ODRC be Denied. ( Objections to R&R due by 10/12/2017). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 9/28/2017. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
62
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 14 and 47 Report and Recommendation dismissing claims and denying 39 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 9/21/17. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 47 Report and Recommendation denying 39 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order/Preliminary Injunction. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 7/28/17. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
41
ORDER ADOPTING 26 ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiffs 13 Motion for Default Judgment is DENIED. Plaintiffs 19 Motion for Leave to File an Amended/Supplemental Complaint is also DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 4/11/17. (eh)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 26 Report and Recommendations denying 13 Motion for Default Judgment. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 1/25/17. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
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 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.
