Replogle v. Montgomery County, Ohio et al
Plaintiff: |
Thomas J Replogle |
Defendant: |
Montgomery County, Ohio, Dave Vore, Phil Plummer, Shawn Baab, Michael Nolan, Timothy Duerr, John Doe and Jane Doe |
Case Number: |
3:2009cv00102 |
Filed: |
March 12, 2009 |
Court: |
US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
Office: |
Civil Rights: Other Office |
County: |
MONTGOMERY |
Presiding Judge: |
Michael R Merz |
Presiding Judge: |
Walter H Rice |
Nature of Suit: |
Both |
Cause of Action: |
Federal Question |
Jury Demanded By: |
28:1441 Petition for Removal- Civil Rights Act |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Date Filed |
Document Text |
July 13, 2009 |
Filing
26
ORDER ADOPTING 25 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is hereby ORDERED that the 21 MOTION for Reconsideration is DENIED. Defendant Duerr and Nolan's 6 MOTION for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED and the Complaint is DISMISSED as to them without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 7/13/2009. (sc1, )
|
June 22, 2009 |
Filing
25
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 21) of the District Judge's Order (Doc. No. 18) Adopting the Magistrate Judge's Report and Rec ommendations (Doc. No. 14) recommending that the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendants Michael Nolan and Timothy Duerr (Doc. No. 6) be granted. It is respectfully recommended that the Motion for Reconsideration should be denied. Objections to R&R due by 7/10/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/20/2009. (kopf1, )
|
June 10, 2009 |
Filing
23
ORDER ADOPTING 19 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is therefore ORDERED that Board of County Commissioners of Montgomery County be substituted as a Defendant in this case for "Montgomery County, Ohio, through its County Commissioners and Sheriffs Department" and that the Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5 ) be otherwise denied. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 6/9/2009. (sc1, )
|
May 20, 2009 |
Filing
19
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Objections (Doc. No. 16) to the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendations (Doc. No. 13). The authority cited by Plaintiff persuades the Magistrate J udge that the initial Report is in error. Accordingly, in lieu of the original recommendation, it is respectfully recommended that the Board of County Commissioners of Montgomery County be substituted for the moving defendant, but that the Motion to Dismiss be otherwise denied. Objections to R&R due by 6/8/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/19/2009. (kopf1, )
|
May 19, 2009 |
Filing
18
ORDER ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that Defendant Duerr and Nolan's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings is GRANTED and the Complaint DISMISSED as to them without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 5/19/2009. (sc1, )
|
May 1, 2009 |
Filing
14
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS as to Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings of Defendants Michael Nolan and Timothy Duerr (Doc. No. 6) - In accordance with the foregoing analysis, Defendant Duerr and Nolan's Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings should be granted and the Complaint dismissed as to them without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Objections to R&R due by 5/18/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/1/2009. (kopf1, )
|
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
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?