Brown v. Johnson et al
| Frank C Brown, Jr. |
| Andre J Johnson, Yvonne D Richardson, Shawn P Frye, Tolbert A Ferrell, Bridgette L Klotz, John D Foy, Gilbert A Hurwood, DeCarlo M Blackwell and Kelly E. Mason |
| 2:2010cv00965 |
| October 27, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Columbus Office |
| MADISON |
| Elizabeth Preston Deavers |
| Peter C Economus |
| 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
111
JUDGMENT is entered pursuant to the Opinion and Order filed 03/25/2014. This case is CLOSED. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
92
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the 81 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order be denied as moot, that the 85 MOTION to Dismiss and the 86 MOTION for Summary Judgment be granted & that th is case be terminated. Further, for good cause shown, the 84 MOTION to Withdraw as Attorney for Defendant Klotz is granted, the 88 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to 86 MOTION for Summary Judgment is denied, and the 31 MOTION to Strike & 80 MOTION to Deny re 77 MOTION for Leave to File Answer Instanter are denied as moot. Objections due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 8/6/2013. (kk2)
|
|
Filing
70
OPINION AND ORDER overruling Defendants' and Mr. Brown's objections 55 , 60 , and 66 to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation and adopting and affirming 52 the Report and Recommendation. Defendants' Motion for Ju dgment on the Pleadings 17 is denied. The previously-ordered stay of this case is lifted, and the Magistrate Judge is directed to issue a new scheduling order. Should Mr. Brown wish to amend his complaint, he shall within 21 days either file the amended complaint or move for an extension based on specific information about his claimed lack of access to the necessary legal materials to do so. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 08/06/2012. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
54
OPINION AND ORDER denying the following motions for injunctive relief: 10 , 29 , and 44 . The following motions for stay are granted: 20 and 28 . Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 01/12/2012. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
52
ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. It is recommended that the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings (# 17 ) be DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for leave to supplement and to strike (# 43 ) and defendants' motion for anextension of time (# 48 ) are DENIED. Plaintiff's motion for leave to amend his complaint (# 26 ) is GRANTED. Amended complaint due within twenty-one days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 1/6/2012. (pes1)
|
|
Filing
11
OPINION AND ORDER sustaining the Plaintiff's objections 9 to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation. The Report and Recommendation 5 is NOT ADOPTED. The Court ORDERS the U.S. Marshal Service serve upon each defendant named in part III, B and C of the form civil rights complaint, a summons, a copy of the complaint, and a copy of this Order. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to mail a courtesy copy of this Order to the Attorney General of Ohio. Each defendant is ORDERED to answer or otherwise respond to the complaint within 45 days after being served with a copy of the complaint and summons. Signed by Judge Edmund A Sargus on 04/01/2011. (dh1)
|
|
Filing
5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that 4 Complaint be dismissed - objections due w/in fourteen (14) days. Signed by Magistrate Judge Terence P Kemp on 12/10/2010. (sr)
|
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.
