Robinson v. City of Charleston et al
| Rashad Robinson |
| City of Charleston Police Department, Charleston City Police, City of Charleston, Luther T Reynolds and Kevin Schlieben |
| 2:2021cv02066 |
| July 12, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Molly H Cherry |
| Richard M Gergel |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. § 1983 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 15, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 23
REPLY by City of Charleston, Luther T Reynolds to #22 Objection to Report and Recommendation . (Jackson, Robin)
|
|
Filing 22
OBJECTION to #14 Report and Recommendation by Rashad Robinson. Reply to Objections due by 9/21/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Apostolou, Alex)
|
|
Filing 21
AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 10/28/2021, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 11/15/2021, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 1/28/2022, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 3/15/2022, Discovery due by 3/8/2022, Motions due by 4/1/2022, Jury Selection Deadline 8/1/2022, Mediation Due by 3/18/2022, Signed by Magistrate Judge Molly H Cherry on 08/25/2021. (cpeg, )
|
|
Filing 20
Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by Kevin Schlieben.(Johnson, James)
|
|
Filing 19
Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by Rashad Robinson.(Apostolou, Alex)
|
|
Filing 18
Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Rashad Robinson.(Apostolou, Alex)
|
|
Filing 17
Local Rule 26.03 Answers to Interrogatories by City of Charleston, Luther T Reynolds.(Jackson, Robin)
|
|
Filing 16
Joint Rule 26 Outline of Discovery Plan by City of Charleston, Luther T Reynolds.(Jackson, Robin)
|
|
Filing 15
Joint Rule 26(f) Report by City of Charleston, Luther T Reynolds. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Proposed Amended Scheduling Order)(Jackson, Robin)
|
|
Filing 14
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of Magistrate Judge Molly H. Cherry. The undersigned RECOMMENDS that Defendants' Partial Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. #7 ) be GRANTED, in part, and DENIED, in part. The undersigned recommends that the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims and state law claims against Defendant Reynolds be dismissed without prejudice, such that he be DISMISSED as a party to this action. The undersigned further recommends that the 42 U.S.C. 1983 claims proceed against the City of Charleston, that the request for punitive damages against the City of Charleston be DISMISSED, and that the claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress/outrage against these two Defendants be DISMISSED. Objections to R&R due by 9/7/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Signed by Magistrate Judge Molly H Cherry on 08/23/2021. (cpeg, )
|
|
Filing 13
REPLY to Response to Motion re #7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Partial Response filed by City of Charleston, Luther T Reynolds. (Jackson, Robin)
|
|
Filing 12
RESPONSE in Opposition re #7 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Partial Response filed by Rashad Robinson.Reply to Response to Motion due by 8/6/2021 Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Exhibit A - K Beyah Complaint, #2 Exhibit Exhibit B - Use of Force History, #3 Exhibit Exhibit C - Our Complaint)(Apostolou, Alex)
|
|
Filing 11
CONFERENCE AND SCHEDULING ORDER Rule 26(f) Conference Deadline 8/10/2021, 26(a) Initial Disclosures due by 8/24/2021, Rule 26 Report due by 8/24/2021, Motions to Amend Pleadings due by 9/14/2021, Plaintiffs ID of Expert Witness due by 10/14/2021, Defendants ID of Expert Witnesses Due by 11/15/2021, Records Custodian Affidavit due by 1/14/2022, Discovery due by 1/14/2022, Motions due by 3/16/2022, Mediation Due by 2/14/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Molly H Cherry on 07/20/2021. (hcor, )
|
|
Filing 10
Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by Kevin Schlieben.(Chandler, J W)
|
|
Filing 9
ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) by Kevin Schlieben. (Chandler, J W)
|
|
Filing 8
ANSWER to Complaint by City of Charleston, Luther T Reynolds.(Jackson, Robin)
|
|
Filing 7
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM Partial by City of Charleston, Luther T Reynolds. Response to Motion due by 7/30/2021. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support)No proposed order.Motions referred to Molly H Cherry.(Jackson, Robin)
|
|
Filing 5
NOTICE of Appearance by J W Nelson Chandler on behalf of Kevin Schlieben (Chandler, J W)
|
|
Filing 4
STIPULATION of Dismissal Without Prejudice Partial by City of Charleston, City of Charleston Police Department, Luther T Reynolds. (Jackson, Robin)
|
|
Filing 3
Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by City of Charleston, City of Charleston Police Department, Luther T Reynolds. (cpeg, ) Modified on 7/14/2021 to correct filing parties (cpeg, ).
|
|
Filing 1
NOTICE OF REMOVAL from South Carolina Court of Common Pleas Charleston County, case number 2021-cp-10-02003. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0420-9952951), filed by Luther T Reynolds, City of Charleston, City of Charleston Police Department. (Attachments: #1 State Court Documents)(cpeg, ) Modified on 7/14/2021 to correct filing parties (cpeg, ).
|
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 South Carolina 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.
