Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-331 - Easley v. Burns et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-331 - Easley v. Burns et al
June 1, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER - Plaintiff may proceed with the following claims: (1) plaintiff's Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Burns, Prise, Larr, Cadogan, Durner, and Goodman; (2) his First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Prise, Goodman, and Burns; and (3) his claim that defendant Felts violated his privacy rights by disclosing information overheard in plaintiff's mental health consultations. REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The following causes of action alleged in the plaintiff's complaint be DISMISSED on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted by this Court: (1) plaintiff's claims against defendants Kasich, Mohr, and Erdos; (2) his claim that defendants Larr, Erdos, Prise, Burns, and Cadogan violated his rights to confidentiality; and (3) his due process claims against defendants Greene, Sammons, and Felts relating to disciplinary proceedings at SOCF. ( Objections to R&R due by 6/20/2016). Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 6/1/2016. (jee)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
June 27, 2016
PDF | More
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendation re 9. The following causes of action alleged in plaintiffs complaint are dismissed on the ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief may be granted by this Court: 1) plaintiffs claims against defendants Kasich, Mohr, and Erdos ; 2) his claim that defendants Larr, Erdos, Prise, Burns, and Cadogan violated his rights to confidentiality; and 3) his due process claims against defendants Greene, Sammons, and Felts relating to disciplinary proceedings at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility. This case will proceed with the following claims: 1) plaintiffs Eighth Amendment claim against defendants Burns, Prise, Larr, Cadogan, Durner, and Goodman; 2) his First Amendment retaliation claim against defendants Prise, Goodman, and Burns; and 3) his claim that defendant Felts violated his privacy rights by disclosing information overheard in plaintiffs mental health consultations. Signed by Judge Sandra S Beckwith on 6/27/16. (mb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
March 27, 2017
PDF | More
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 22 Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT Plaintiff's Motion for Preliminary Injunction 22 be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 4/10/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Stephanie K. Bowman on 3/27/2017. (km) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
May 3, 2017
PDF | More
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiffs motion for preliminary injunction (Doc. 22) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 5/3/17. (gs)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)