1. Home
  2. Browse Decisions
  3. CHASTEEN v. MOHR
 

CHASTEEN v. MOHR

Case No. 2:14-cv-1690.

Adam Chasteen, Plaintiff, v. Gary Mohr, et al., Defendants.

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

January 5, 2016.

Attorney(s) appearing for the Case

Adam Chasteen, Plaintiff, Pro Se.

Gary Mohr, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Rod Johnson, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Gary Croft, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Paul Shoemaker, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Mona Parks, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Jondrea Parrish, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Mr. Durroh, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

L. Gilliam, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Mr. Wilson, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Ms. Oppy, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Doctor John Doe, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Nurse John Doe, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General & Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Officer Melott, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

Officer John Doe, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General, Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General & Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

State of Ohio, Defendant, represented by Brandon Alexander Kennedy , Office of Ohio Attorney General.

ORDER

Defendants have moved to stay the dispositive motion deadline. As further explained below, the motion sets forth good cause for a stay and the motion (Doc. 21) is therefore granted.

The basis for the stay is plaintiff's failure to respond to the state of Ohio's motion to dismiss certain defendants...

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