Wade v. Eversole et al
| Charles Wade |
| John Eversole, Phil Plummer, Montgomery County Board of Commissioners, Scott Landis, Joshua Lightner and Jane and/or John Does |
| 3:2017cv00051 |
| February 14, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Thomas M. Rose |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| 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
79
ORDER DISMISSING CASE -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 45 days, reopen the action if settlement is not consummated. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 12-11-2018.(de)
|
|
Filing
77
ENTRY AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 61 , AND GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 75 . SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS AWARDED TO DEFENDANTJOSHUA LIGHTNER, SCOTT LAND IS AND SHERIFF PLUMMER IN THEIR PERSONAL CAPACITY AND TO ALL INDIVIDUAL DEFENDANTS IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPACITY. SUMMARYJUDGMENT IS DENIED TO CHARLES EVERSOLE AND TO THE COUNTY, EXCEPT THAT SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS AWARDED ON THE CLAIMS OF CONSPIRACY AND SPOLIATION. Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 12-4-2018. (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.
