Chapman v. Franklin County Board of Commissioners et al
| Tasha Chapman |
| Franklin County Board of Commissioners, Commissioner John O'Grady, Kevin L Boyce, Erica C Crawley, The City of Columbus, Franklin County Sheriff Office, Franklin County Juvenile and Domestic Branch, Franklin County Municipal Court, George Gary Tyack, Franklin County Prosecuting Attorney's Office, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas - Criminal Division, Franklin County Court of Common Pleas - General Division, Kim A Browne, America Andrade, Columbus City Prosecutor's Office, David C Young, Jonathan Hein, Supreme Court of Ohio, Office of the Clerk, Maryellen O'Shaughnessy, Perry Ossing, Priya D Tamilarasan, Thomas A Gjostein, Joretta Groom, Sheriff Dallas Baldwin and Franklin County Sheriff's Office |
| 2:2024cv00029 |
| January 4, 2024 |
| U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Elizabeth Preston Deavers |
| Algenon L Marbley |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
54
ORDER ADOPTING 42 the Report and Recommendation; OVERRULING 45 Plaintiffs Objections; DENYING 33 Plaintiffs Motion for Leave to Appeal in Forma Pauperis; GRANTING IN PART to the extent it seeks an extension of time to file objections to the R&R , and DENYING to the extent it seeks other relief, 44 Plaintiffs Motion for Relief and Extension of Time to Object. DISMISSING Plaintiff's complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. DENIED AS MOOT 46 Plaintiffs Rule 60 Motion, 48 Motion to Recuse, 50 Motion for Partial Default Judgment, and 51 Motion for Judicial Process. CERTIFYING pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 191 5(a)(3) that, for the foregoing reasons, an appeal of this Order would not be taken in good faith and DENYING Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge Algenon L Marbley on 5/9/2025. (cw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
42
INITIAL SCREEN REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 6 Complaint filed by Tasha Chapman. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's Complaint be DISMISSED in its entirety pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for failure to state a claim upon which relie f can be granted and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. It is FURTHER RECOMMENDED that the Court certify pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3) that for the foregoing reasons an appeal of any Order adopting this R&R would not be taken in goo d faith and therefore deny Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 10/30/2024. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 10/16/2024. (vb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER striking 15 Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from the Court's 1/26/24 Order. Plaintiff is DIRECTED to CEASE filing documents until after the Court has performed its Initial Screen of Plaintiff's Complaint. Signed by Magistrate Judge Elizabeth Preston Deavers on 2/15/24. (sem)(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 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
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.
