GALLANT v. CADOGAN

Case No. 1:16-cv-00487.

JEREMY P. GALLANT, Plaintiff v. MR. CADOGAN, et al., Defendants.

United States District Court, S.D. Ohio, Western Division.

Editors Note
Applicable Law: 42 U.S.C. § 1983
Cause: 42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Nature of Suit: 550 Prisoner: Civil Rights
Source: PACER


Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Jeremy P. Gallant, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Anthony Cadogan, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Faisal Ahmed, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Ms. Clagg, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Mr. Cool, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Mr. Whittman, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Mr. Frazie, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Mr. Sattersfield, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Mr. Mead, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Ms. Mahlman, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Mr. Holden, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Mr. Wilson, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.

Mr. Hunyadi, Defendant, represented by George Horvath , State Of Ohio Attorney General.


ORDER

KAREN L. LITKOVITZ, Magistrate Judge.

Plaintiff, an inmate at the Southern Ohio Correctional Facility, brings this pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 claiming violations of his civil rights. On sua sponte review of the original complaint under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2)(B) and 1915A(b), the undersigned recommended that certain claims be dismissed and ordered that plaintiff could proceed on other claims. (Doc. 5). Plaintiff objected to the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 7), defendants filed a response (Doc. 17), and plaintiff filed a reply (Doc. 20). The objections remain pending. Plaintiff subsequently filed motions for leave to supplement/amend the complaint and add parties as defendants (Docs. 36, 37), and he submitted a proposed amended complaint. (Doc. 39). The undersigned will defer ruling on these motions and on the proposed amended complaint pending the District Judge's decision on plaintiff's objections to the initial Report and Recommendation. (Doc. 7). The discovery and dispositive motion deadlines set forth in the Court's Order dated June 7, 2017 (Doc. 47) are STAYED pending the District Judge's ruling on plaintiff's objections and further Order of the Court.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Comment

1000 Characters Remaining

Leagle.com reserves the right to edit or remove comments but is under no obligation to do so, or to explain individual moderation decisions.

User Comments

Listed below are the cases that are cited in this Featured Case. Click the citation to see the full text of the cited case. Citations are also linked in the body of the Featured Case.

Cited Cases

  • No Cases Found

Listed below are those cases in which this Featured Case is cited. Click on the case name to see the full text of the citing case.

Citing Cases