Thompson v. Erdos et al
Gerald Thompson |
Erdos, William Cool, Cynthia Davis, McCrosky, Payne, Shaw, Tackett, Marlo and Congus |
1:2016cv00812 |
August 4, 2016 |
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
Cincinnati Office |
SCIOTO |
Stephanie K. Bowman |
Susan J. Dlott |
Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 70 ORDER ADOPTING 57 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS Accordingly, defendants' motion for summary judgment (Doc. 46) is GRANTED. The motionto strike the amended complaint (Doc. 51) is GRANTED with the amended complaint filed on April 19,2018 (Doc. 48) STRICKEN from the record. Plaintiffs remaining motions (Docs. 52, 53, 55, 56, 57,and 58) are DENIED AS MOOT. This case is hereby TERMINATED from the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 2/1/2019. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 42 ORDER adopting 41 Report and Recommendations: the Court does determine 41 Recommendation should be adopted.Accordingly, plaintiffs two latest motions for preliminary injunctive relief (Docs. 34 and 36) are DENIED for the reasons previously stated in the Report and Recommendation of January 18, 2017 and adopted by the court on January 30, 2017 (Docs. 19, 20). Plaintiff is furtherwarned that the filing of repetitive motions will not be tolerated. In the future, repetitive motions will be stricken from the record without further comment. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 9/6/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 41 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 39 Plaintiff's Motion for Injunction Relief. For the reasons previously set forth in the prior R&Rs, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's latest motion for injunctive relief 39 be DENIED, without awaiting a response from the Defendants, and alternatively, stricken from the record. Objections to R&R due by 9/19/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 9/5/2017. (km)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 20 ORDER ADOPTING 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS : plaintiffs claims against the following defendants: Warden Erdos, Sgt. McCrosky, Officer Shaw, Officer Tacketts unknown partner, Hutchinson, Henderson, C.O. Coleman, and Officer Congus are DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C.§§1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). To the extent that plaintiff intended to name Lt. Esham and Rogers as defendants in this action, plaintiffs claims against these individuals are also DISMISSED. Finally, with the exception of plaintiffs retaliation claims against Dillow and Sears based on the September 22, 2016 attack - plaintiffs retaliation claims against Dillow, Sears and Payne are DISMISSED.. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 1/30/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)] |
Filing 18 ORDER denying 5 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying 7 Motion to show cause. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 1/18/17. (sct)(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.