Richardson v. Dayton Public Schools et al
| Earl Richardson |
| Dayton Public Schools, Phillip Bass, Ed Sweetnich and John Doe |
| 3:2010cv00028 |
| January 25, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Michael R Merz |
| Walter H Rice |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| None |
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
58
DECISION AND ORDER; CERTIFICATE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS - In certifying that Plaintiff's prior appeal was not taken in objective good faith, the Magistrate Judge noted that the dismissal at that point in time was based on "straightforward a pplications on well-established law: failure to exhaust administrative remedies and obtain a right to sue letter, failure to file within the statute of limitations, and suit against individuals who are not employers within the meaning of federal law for the purpose for which they were sued." None of those considerations have changed. In addition, Plaintiff has not given any reasons why the Court's decision on his Motion for Relief from Judgment is erroneous. Mr. Richardson is urged to file his application for in forma pauperis status with the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati as promptly as possible. Filing with the Clerk of this Court is not a substitute for filing with the Clerk of that Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/4/2013.
|
|
Filing
52
DECISION AND ORDER - Plaintiff's Motion for Reconsideration (Doc. No. 51) of the Court's Decision and Order Denying Motion to Reopen Case (Doc. No. 50) is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 8/16/2013. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
45
NOTICE TO PRO SE PLAINTIFF - re 44 Notice (Other). Plaintiff is hereby notified that the United States Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction on appeal from this Court. Plaintiff does have the right to seek review of the decision of the Sixth Ci rcuit affirming this Courts dismissal by filing with the Supreme Court a petition for writ of certiorari not later than ninety days after the Court of Appeals issued its mandate on January 17, 2012 (Doc. No. 42 ). This Court does not have authority to permit Plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis in the Supreme Court and will not transmit any documents to that Court unless and until that Court requests them. Filed by Earl Richardson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 03/06/2012. (kf)
|
|
Filing
37
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO CHALLENGE - Plaintiff's Motion to Challenge the Magistrate's Order and Certification of Bad Faith in forma pauperis Appeal (Doc. No. 36) is denied. If the district court denies the individual leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal, theparty may file, within thirty days after service of the district court's decision as prescribed for by Fed. R.App. P. 24(a)(4), a motion with the Court of Appeals for leave to proceed as a pauper on appeal. Any such motion must be filed with the Court of Appeals not later than July 8, 2010. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/18/2010. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
35
INDICATIVE RULING ON PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM JUDGMENT - This case is before the Court on Plaintiff's Motion for Relief from Judgment (Doc. No. 33). Plaintiff has not shown any error in the Court's final judgment or in the interlocutory matters of which he complains. The Motion for Relief from Judgment is DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/8/2010. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
31
CERTIFICATE OF FRIVOLOUSNESS AND DEFICIENCY ORDER - Plaintiff is accordingly ordered to pay the appellate filing fee of $455 not later than July 2, 2010. If he fails to do so, the Court of Appeals may dismiss the appeal on that basis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 6/2/2010. (kk1)
|
|
Filing
23
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - This case is before the Court on Defendants' Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 7). Plaintiff opposed the Motion and sought leave to file an amended complaint (Doc. No. 10). The Magistrate Judge recommended granting the Motion to Dismiss (Report and Recommendations, Doc. No. 15) and denied leave to amend on grounds of futility (Doc. No. 16). The parties then unanimously consented to plenary magistrate judge jurisdiction and the case was referred on that basis (Doc. Nos. 17, 18). Plaintiff then objected that the Motion to Dismiss was untimely (Doc. No. 20), but the Court rejected that argument (Doc. No. 21). No other objections have been filed to the Report and Recommendations and the time for objec tion expired on May 10, 2010. Accordingly, the Report and Recommendations are adopted as the decision of the Court. Counts 1 and 2 of the Complaint are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. Count 3 is dismissed with prejudice as barred by the statute of limitations for actions under 29 U.S.C. § 185. Count 4 is dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The claims against individual Defendants Ed Sweetnich and Phillip Bass are dismissed without prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Clerk will enter final judgment accordingly. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/11/2010. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
21
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTION TO DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO DISMISS AS UNTIMELY. Since neither one of Defendants filings was untimely, Plaintiffs Objection is overruled. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 5/3/2010. (gh1)
|
|
Filing
3
RECOMMENDATION TO DISTRICT JUDGES REGARDING RELATED CASE MEMORANDUM; ORDER TO ISSUE AND SERVE PROCESS - The Magistrate Judge perceives no likely judicial economy from transferring the new case to Judge Rose and respectfully recommends to both Distric t Judges that they allow the second case to remain assigned to Judge Rice. It is hereby ORDERED: 1. The Clerk shall issue process for service upon each of the Defendants upon presentation of properly prepared Summons and Marshal 285 forms by the Plaintiff. 2. Upon receipt of the properly prepared forms, the United States Marshal shall make service of process in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/25/2010. (kpf1)
|
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.
