Carter v. United States of America et al
Plaintiff: Orlando Carter, r
Defendant: United States of America, U.S. Department of Justice, United States Attorney and Executive Office of United States Attorneys
Case Number: 1:2017cv00248
Filed: April 17, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Cincinnati Office
County: COLUMBIANA
Presiding Judge: Susan J. Dlott
Presiding Judge: Karen L. Litkovitz
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
June 15, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 48 ORDER ADOPTING 43 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, defendants motion for summary judgment (Doc. 25) is GRANTED. Plaintiffs motion for contempt (Doc. 33) is DENIED. Plaintiffs motion for contempt/declaratory judgment (Doc. 35) is DENIED. This case is hereby TERMINATED from the docket of this Court.Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 6/15/2018. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
April 3, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 43 ORDER that plaintiff's motions to compel 28 31 are Denied; plaintiff's motion for an informal discovery conference 27 is Denied as moot; plaintiff's motion for hearing/conference call and for appointment of counsel 36 is Denied as moot; plaintiff's motion for a status update 38 is Denied as moot; and plaintiff's motion to establish fact or genuineness of answer of objection pursuant to Rule 36/request for extension due to defendants' failure to comply with discovery requests 42 is Denied as moot. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that defendants' motion for summary judgment 25 be Granted. It is further recommended that this case be closed on the docket of this Court; plaintiff's motion for con tempt 33 be Denied; and plaintiff's motion for contempt/declaratory judgment 35 be Denied. ( Objections to R&R due by 4/17/2018). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 4/3/2018. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
March 9, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 40 ORDER ADOPTING 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Plaintiff's 12 motion for default judgment is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/9/2018. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
March 7, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 39 ORDER by Judge Susan J. Dlott ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS; denying pltfs motion for a preliminary injunction. (vp)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
December 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 30 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff's 19 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction be Denied. Objections to R&R due by 12/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 12/13/2017. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
September 21, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 20 ORDER that plaintiff's 17 Motion to cure and effect proper service is Granted. Plaintiff must perfect service on defendants within (60) days or risk dismissal of this matter under Rule 4(m). Defendants are entitled to (30) days from the dat e of service of process within which to file its answer or other responsive pleading. Plaintiff's 12 Motion for judicial notice/hearing is Denied. Plaintiff's 12 MOTION for findings by the Court under Rule 52 is Denied. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that plaintiff's 12 MOTION for Default Judgment be Denied. ( Objections to R&R due by 10/5/2017). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 9/21/2017. (art)(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: Carter v. United States of America 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: Orlando Carter, r
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: United States of America
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: U.S. Department of Justice
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: United States Attorney
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: Executive Office of United States Attorneys
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?