Prado v. Mazeika, et al.
| Glenda Jacqueline Prado |
| Pat Mazeika, Beth Rubin, Amy Auburn, Malana Penney, Joshua Coomer, Beth Keller, Greene County, Ohio Board of Commissioners, Greene County, Ohio, Greene County Children's Services Board, Brian Huddleston and Other Unnamed Greene County Children's Services Employees |
| 3:2016cv00320 |
| August 3, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| GREENE |
| Thomas M. Rose |
| Employment |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
95
ORDER OF DISMISSAL; TERMINATION ENTRY - The Court having been advised by counsel for the parties that the above matter has been settled, IT IS ORDERED that this action is hereby DISMISSED, with prejudice as to the parties, provided that any of the parties may, upon good cause shown within 60 days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 3/25/19. (pb)
|
|
Filing
94
DECISION AND ENTRY SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO STRIKE PORTIONS OF PLAINTIFF'S AFFIDAVIT (DOC. # 70 ); SUSTAINING IN PART AND OVERRULING IN PART DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (DOC. # 67 ). Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 3/21/19. (pb)
|
|
Filing
93
DECISION AND ENTRY TENTATIVELY SUSTAINING WITHOUT PREJUDICE DEFENDANTS' MOTION IN LIMINE REGARDING EXHIBITS NOT PREVIOUSLY PRODUCED (DOC. #88) 88 Motion in Limine. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 3/5/19. (pb)
|
|
Filing
64
DECISION AND ENTRY OVERRULING MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME TO COMPLETE DISCOVERY (DOC. # 58 ) AND OVERRULING MOTION TO COMPEL (DOC. # 61 ). Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 11/5/18. (pb)
|
|
Filing
57
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 53 ); OVERRULING PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS (DOC. # 54 ); SUSTAINING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. # 46 ). Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 9/21/18. (pb)
|
|
Filing
53
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT: (1) DEFENDANTS PARTIAL MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 46 ) BE GRANTED; (2) PLAINTIFFS § 1983 CLAIMS FOR MALICIOUS PROSECUTION, FALSE ARREST, AND FALSE IMPRISONMENT ALL BE DISMISSED; AND (3) THIS CASE REMAIN PENDING WITH REGARD TO PLAINTIFFS EMPLOYMENT DISCRIMINATION AND RETALIATION CLAIMS.Objections to R&R due by 8/1/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 7/18/18. (kma)
|
|
Filing
38
ENTRY AND ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS (DOC. 35 ) TO THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. 33 ) AND DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 22 ) AS MOOT. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 10/2/17. (ep)
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER AND ENTRY: (1) GRANTING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT (DOC. 26); (2) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO SEPARATELY FILE THE AMENDED COMPLAINT WITHIN SEVEN DAYS OF THE ENTRY OF THIS ORDER; AND (3) NOTIFYING PLAINTIFF THAT HER FAILU RE TO FILE THE AMENDED COMPLAINT AS ORDERED MAY RESULT IN THE DISMISSAL OF THIS CASE FOR FAILURE TO PROSECUTE***REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT DEFENDANTS MOTION FOR PARTIAL JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS (DOC. 22) BE DENIED AS MOOT Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 8/10/2017. (dm)
|
|
Filing
25
ENTRY AND ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF GLENDA JACQUELINE PRADO'S MOTION TO DISQUALIFY COUNSEL 19 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 11-28-2016. (de)
|
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.
