1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. F.2d
  4. 704 F.2d
  5. 704 F.2d 908 (1983)
 

KUMAR v. MARION CTY. COM. PL. CT., DIV. OF DOM. REL.

No. 81-3715.

704 F.2d 908 (1983)

Kanwal KUMAR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. MARION COUNTY COMMON PLEAS COURT, DIVISION OF DOMESTIC RELATIONS; Hon. Robert A. Kelly, Judge of said Court; Hon. Donald Hall, Marion County Common Pleas Court, Division of Domestic Relations; Marion County Bar Association; Thomas K. Jenkins, President; Margaret Howser, Clerk of Court, Marion County Common Pleas Court; Margaret Newman, Assignment Clerk, Marion County Common Pleas Court; Domestic Relations; Robert O. Stout; Michael C. Piacentio, Morrow County Common Pleas Court, Division of Domestic Relations; Hon. Gale B. Weller, Judge; Vivian Belt, Court Reporter, Morrow County Common Pleas Court; Albert Bell, Attorney, Ohio State Bar Association; V.A. Cooper, Marion County Welfare Department, Defendants-Appellees.

United States Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit.

Decided April 13, 1983.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Kanwal Kumar, pro se.

Carl Genberg (argued), Columbus, Ohio, for plaintiff-appellant.

John W. Hackett, Jr., Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Toledo, Ohio, for Marion Cty. Ct. and Judges.

Rolf Scheidel (argued), David M. Schnorf, Schnorf, Schnorf & Holmes, Toledo, Ohio, for Marion Cty. Bar Ass'n.

Robert B. Gosline, Shumaker, Loop & Kendrick, Toledo, Ohio, for Michael C. Piacentio.

Thomas E. Ray, Pros. Atty., Morrow County, Mount Gilead, Ohio, for Morrow County Common Pleas Ct. and Judges.

Charles E. Ide, Jr., Secor, Ide & Callahan, Toledo, Ohio, for Albert Bell.

Jamille G. Jamra, Eastman & Smith, Toledo, Ohio, for Robert O. Stout.

John R. Welch, Ohio State Bar Ass'n, Columbus, Ohio, for Ohio St. Bar Ass'n.

Before LIVELY and MARTIN, Circuit Judges, and HILLMAN, District Judge.

PER CURIAM.

This is a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, 1985, 1986, and 1988 in which Kanwal Kumar seeks redress for alleged violations of his constitutional rights to due process and to equal protection of the laws. The district court, after thorough consideration of all issues raised by the complaint as amended, dismissed the action as to all defendants. We affirm.

Briefly, the case arises out of divorce proceedings instituted...

Let's get started

Leagle.com

Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.

  • Updated daily.
  • Uncompromising quality.
  • Complete, Accurate, Current.

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