Easterling v. Lakefront Lines, Inc.

Plaintiff: Warren Easterling, r
Defendant: Lakefront Lines Inc
Case Number: 3:2018cv00075
Filed: March 13, 2018
Court: Ohio Southern District Court
Office: Dayton Office
County: MONTGOMERY
Referring Judge: Michael J. Newman
Presiding Judge: Walter H. Rice
Nature of Suit: Employment
Cause of Action: 42:1985
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
May 16, 2018 21 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION1 THAT PLAINTIFFS SECOND MOTION FOR A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. 20 ) BE DENIED- This civil case is before the Court on pro se Plaintiffs second motion for a preliminary injunction. Doc. 20 . For the reasons set forth by the undersigned in the Report and Recommendation recommending denial of Plaintiffs first motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. 6 ), and for the reasons set forth by Judge Rice in adopting the undersigneds recommendation and denying Plaintiffs fi rst motion for a preliminary injunction (doc. 18 ), the undersigned RECOMMENDS that Plaintiffs second motion for a preliminary injunction be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 5/30/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 5/16/18. (kma)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
May 8, 2018 18 Opinion or Order of the Court DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (DOC. # 10 ) DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUP ERIS (DOC. # 9 ); PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. # 12 ) OVERRULED; DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (DOC. # 6 ) RECOMMENDING THAT PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (DOC. # 4 ) BE DENIED; PLAINTIFF'S OBJECTIONS TO SAID JUDICIAL FILING (DOC. # 8 ) OVERRULED; NOTICE TO DEFENDANT WITH REGARD TO MANDATORY PAYMENT OF FILING FEE. Signed by Judge Walter H. Rice on 5/7/2018. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
March 21, 2018 10 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION THAT PRO SE PLAINTIFFS MOTION TO PROCEED IN FORMA PAUPERIS (DOC. 9) BE DENIED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 3/21/2018. (dm)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
March 16, 2018 6 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 4 MOTION for Preliminary Injunction filed by Warren Easterling, r Objections to R&R due by 3/30/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J. Newman on 3/16/18. (kma)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

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

Search for this case: Easterling v. Lakefront Lines, Inc.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Warren Easterling, r
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Lakefront Lines Inc
Represented By: David J. Garraux
Represented By: David J. Kiefer
Represented By: Andrew J. Wolf
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

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?