Hellmuth v. Hood et al
| Daniel L. Hellmuth |
| Leanne Hood and Herbert Hood |
| 1:2018cv00340 |
| May 18, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Cincinnati Office |
| XX US, Outside State |
| Michael R. Barrett |
| Karen L. Litkovitz |
| Other 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
37
ORDER granting adopting Report and Recommendation re 29 Report and Recommendation granting 16 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Signed by Judge Michael R. Barrett on 4/17/19. (ba)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
29
REPORT & RECOMMENDATION that defendants' 16 MOTION for Judgment on the pleadings be Granted. ORDER that plaintiff's 11 motion to dismiss defendants' answers to the complaint is Denied; plaintiff's 15 motion to estoppel is D enied as Moot; plaintiff's 3 motion to allow him to use the ECF system is Denied as moot; plaintiff's 23 motion to rule on rule 52 is Denied as moot; and plaintiff's motion for a suppression order is Denied as moot. ( Objections to R&R due by 12/11/2018). Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 11/27/2018. (art)(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.
