Peeples v. Kasich

Peeples v. Kasich

Plaintiff:	Kavin Lee Peeples
Defendant:	John Kasich
Case Number:	1:2017cv00191
Filed:	March 23, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Cincinnati Office
County:	SCIOTO
Presiding Judge:	Timothy S. Black
Presiding Judge:	Karen L. Litkovitz
Nature of Suit:	Civil Rights
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

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
May 2, 2017	Filing 13 DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Accordingly, this civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). Furthermore, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. All additional pending motions (Docs. 10, 12) are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 5/2/17. (gs)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
April 19, 2017	Filing 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 3 Amended Complaint filed by Kavin Lee Peeples: It is RECOMMENDED that The plaintiff's amended complaint 3 be dismissed with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 5/3/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 4/19/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 2, 2017

Filing 13 DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Accordingly, this civil action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b)(1). Furthermore, the Court certifies pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(a) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore denies Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. All additional pending motions (Docs. 10, 12) are DENIED as moot. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 5/2/17. (gs)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

April 19, 2017

Filing 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 3 Amended Complaint filed by Kavin Lee Peeples: It is RECOMMENDED that The plaintiff's amended complaint 3 be dismissed with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 5/3/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 4/19/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

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: Peeples v. Kasich
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kavin Lee Peeples
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: John Kasich
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?