Sweeting v. Schweigtzer et al
| Derrick Sweeting |
| Thomas Schweigtzer, Husbard, Spurlock, Couch, ShanKiu and Hilis |
| 1:2017cv00727 |
| October 30, 2017 |
| 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 |
| 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
29
ORDER: 21 Motion to Serve Rule 45 Subpoena and 25 Motion for Rule 31 Deposition are DENIED as MOOT; 26 Motion to Appoint Counsel is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 10/5/2018. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. The complaint be DISMISSED with prejudice pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). 2. The Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of an y Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith, and therefore, deny plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 1/17/2018 signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 01/03/2018. (bjc)(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.
