Wolfel et al v. Collins et al
| Dennis M Wolfel and Anthony M. Soto |
| DeCarlo Blackwell, Terry J. Collins, Dwight Pressler, Deb Timmerman-Cooper, Russell Parrish, Kim Pagels and Chief Inspector |
| 2:2007cv01296 |
| December 24, 2007 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Columbus Office |
| FRANKLIN |
| John D. Holschuh |
| Norah McCann King |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
105
ORDER - The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED; Defendants' First Motion for Summary Judgment 98 is GRANTED; Plaintiffs' Motion for Partial Summary Judgment 23 is DENIED. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 8/15/11. (jk)
|
|
Filing
103
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 23 MOTION for Partial Summary Judgment filed by Anthony M. Soto, Dennis M Wolfel, 98 First MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by Kim Pagels, Chief Inspector, Russell Parrish, Dwight Pressler, Terry J. Collins, Deb Timmerman-Cooper, DeCarlo Blackwell, IIS. It is RECOMMENDED that Defendants motion be granted and that Plaintiffs motion be denied. Objections to R&R due by 5/26/2011. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 5/9/11. (jcw1)
|
|
Filing
100
OPINION and ORDER denying 83 Plaintiff's Motion for Rule 11 Sanctions; Adopting and Affirming 87 the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation; denying 89 Plaintiff's Objection to the Report and Recommendation and denying 90 Defendants' Objection to the Report and Recommendation. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment 37 is DENIED in part AND GRANTED in part. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 1/4/11. (jk)
|
|
Filing
95
OPINION and ORDER granting 91 Motion for Leave to File and Amended Answer Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 12/02/10. (rew)
|
|
Filing
87
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that Defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 37 , as it pertains to Plaintiff Wolfels claims, be DENIED in part and GRANTED in part. As the motion relates to exhaustion of adm inistrative remedies in connection with the events of 2004, it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED; as the motion relates to exhaustion of administrative remedies in connection with the events of 2007, it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be GRANTED. Objections to R&R due by 10/25/2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King on 10/07/10. (rew)
|
|
Filing
57
OPINION & ORDER - The Defendants' objections, Doc. No. 56 , are DENIED. The Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED and AFFIRMED. Specifically, Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 37 , is DENIED as to Plaintiff Wolfel's cl aim and GRANTED as to Plaintiff Soto's claim. All claims asserted by Plaintiff Soto are DISMISSED for failure to prosecute. Plaintiff Wolfel's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment, Doc. No. 23 , is HELD IN ABEYANCE pending an evidentiary he aring on the issue of exhaustion. Plaintiff Wolfel's Motions for Preliminary Injunction, Doc. Nos. 18 , 28 , are DENIED. Plaintiff Wolfel's claims for injunctive relief are DISMISSED as moot; this Plaintiff's claim for monetary relie f remains. This matter is REFERRED to United States Magistrate Judge Norah McCann King for evidentiary hearing and report and recommendation on the issue of exhaustion of administrative remedies by Plaintiff Wolfel. Signed by Judge John D. Holschuh on 6/29/10. (jr1)
|
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.
