Tolliver v. Noble et al
Plaintiff: Kevin A. Tolliver
Defendant: Noble, Taylor, Christler, Sibalski, Blackwell, Webb, Westfall, Levan and Pyles
Case Number: 2:2016cv01020
Filed: October 25, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Columbus Office
County: MADISON
Presiding Judge: Kimberly A. Jolson
Presiding Judge: George C. Smith
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 22, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 183 ORDER granting 151 Plaintiffs Request for Fourteen Days to Notify the Court of the Acquisition of Counsel; overruling 153 and 174 Plaintiff's Objections; granting 154 Motion for Summary Judgement of Defendant Investigators Sean Sabulsk y and Matthew Crisler; granting 162 Plaintiffs Motion Instanter, asking for an extension of time to filed hi Memorandum in Opposition to the Investigators Motion for Summary Judgment; adopting and affirming re 172 Report and Recommendation and Order; denying as moot 173 Plaintiffs Motion in Opposition to Motion to Strike; denying as moot 175 Plaintiff Motion for Transportation to Trial; denying without prejudice 177 Request to have the Case Assigned to A Mediator; denying as moot 178 Plaintiffs Motion for Video Attendance; denying as moot 179 Plaintiffs Motion in Limine.The Magistrate Judge will schedule a status conference forthwith. This case remains open on thisCourts docket with the only remaining claim of retaliation against the only remaining defendant, Abdul Rahman Shahid. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 3/22/2022. (cmw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
January 14, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 172 ORDER REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is RECOMMENDED that the Motions for Summary Judgment (Docs. 154 , 156 ) be GRANTED. It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion to Strike (Doc. 160 ) be DENIED and that the Investigators' Motion to Strike (Doc. 169 ) be GRANTED. Accordingly, the Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE Plaintiff's Motion Instanter: Plaintiff's Request for Leave to File Second Amended Complaint (Doc. 164 ); Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File Second Amende d Complaint (Doc. 165 ); Notice and Re-Filing of Plaintiff's Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 166 ); and Plaintiff's Motion for Declaratory Judgment (Doc. 167 ). Objections to R&R due by 1/28/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 1/14/2022. (kk2)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification)
September 7, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 149 OPINION AND ORDER denying ECF No. 146 Plaintiff's Motion for Telephone Conference; DENYING ECF No. 147 Plaintiff's Renewed Objection to Magistrate's Position on Declaratory Judgment Issues Contained in Complaint and GRANTING ECF N o. granting 148 Defendant's Motion for Extension of Time to File Dispositive Motion. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 9/7/2021. (cmw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
January 21, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 117 OPINION AND ORDER - The Court ADOPTS AND AFFIRMS ECF NOs. 86 and 112 The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations. The Court OVERRULES ECF NOs. 101 and [114} Plaintiff's Objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recom mendations. The Court GRANTS ECF No. 79 Plaintiff's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. Defendants Noble, Jefferies, Cahill, Taylor, Moore, Lawrence, Davis, and Hunyadi are entitled to judgment in their favor. The Court DENIES ECF No. [1 10] Plaintiffs Motion for Declaratory Judgement. The remaining four Defendants in this case are Investigators Christler and Sibalski, Abdul Rahman Shahid, and Sunni Ali Islam. Signed by Judge Edmund A. Sargus on 1/21/2021. (cmw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
December 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 112 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ORDER denying 100 Motion to Amend, granting 106 Motion to Amend Motion/Correct, RECOMMENDING that 110 Motion for Declaratory Judgment be denied. Discovery due by 6/18/2021. Dispositive Motions due by 7/19/2021. Objections to R&R due by 1/4/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 12/18/2020. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
July 24, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 86 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and ORDER: It is RECOMMENDED that 79 Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings be GRANTED. Within 14 days, Plaintiff is ORDERED to show cause why this case should not be dismissed with respect to Defendants Abdul Rahman Shahid and Sunni Ali Islam. Objections to R&R due by 8/7/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 7/24/2020. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
June 21, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 61 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued re 34 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order filed by Kevin A. Tolliver in that it is RECOMMENDED that the motion be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 7/5/2019. Defendant is DIRECTED to respond to Plaintiffs Offer of Settlement 59 within 14 days of the date of this Report and Recommendation. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 6/21/19. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
March 8, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 14 ORDER ADOPTING AND AFFIRMING 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Plaintiff's Complaint is hereby DISMISSED for failure to state a claim. All pending motions and this case are terminated. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 3/8/2017. (agm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
January 13, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 11 ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 5 MOTION for Respondent to Provide Documents to the Court filed by Kevin A. Tolliver, 2 MOTION for Temporary Restraining Order filed by Kevin A. Tolliver in that it is RECOMMENDED that these motions be DENIED and that this action be DISMISSED. Objections to R&R due by 1/27/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 1/13/17. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: Tolliver v. Noble et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Kevin A. Tolliver
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: Noble
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: Taylor
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: Christler
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: Sibalski
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: Blackwell
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: Webb
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: Westfall
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: Levan
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: Pyles
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.


Why Is My Information Online?