Cunningham v. Beasley
| Carol Yvonne Cunningham |
| Mary Beasley |
| 1:2024cv00606 |
| October 24, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Karen L Litkovitz |
| Matthew W McFarland |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1343 Violation of Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 18, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 CLERK'S JUDGMENT. (kaf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.) |
Filing 5
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Doc. #4 ): The Court ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation in its entirety and ORDERS the following: 1. The Complaint is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B); 2. The Court CERTIFIES pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915(a) that an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and therefore DENIES Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Plaintiff remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. See Callihan v. Schneider, 178 F.3d 800,803 (6th Cir. 1999); and 3. This case is TERMINATED from the Court's docket. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Judge Matthew W. McFarland on 12/18/2024. (kaf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing 4
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - IT IS THEREFORE 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) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this Report and Recommendation would not be taken in good faith and therefore deny Ms. Cunningham leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Ms. Cunningham remains free to apply to proceed in forma pauperis in the Court of Appeals. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/29/2024. (kev)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 3 COMPLAINT against Mary Beasley, filed by Carol Yvonne Cunningham. (kev) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER granting #1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/29/2024. (kev)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
| Filing 1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Plaintiff Carol Yvonne Cunningham. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Complaint, #3 Summons & USM Forms) (kev) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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
| Search for this case: Cunningham v. Beasley | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Carol Yvonne Cunningham | |
| 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: Mary Beasley | |
| 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.
