Woodhouse v. Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections et al
| Shaquale R. Woodhouse |
| Ohio Department of Rehabilitation & Corrections, Howard, Diehl, Mustard, Warden, Ross Correctional Institution and Donna Skagg |
| 2:2016cv00887 |
| September 15, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Columbus Office |
| ROSS |
| Elizabeth Preston Deavers |
| George C. Smith |
| 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
11
ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 9 in that the Court DISMISS this action for failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 1/12/17. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
9
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 3 Complaint filed by Shaquale R. Woodhouse: It is RECOMMENDED that the Court DISMISS this action for failure to state claim upon which relief can be granted pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). Objections to R&R due by 11/4/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 10/18/2016. (mas)(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.
