Dipasquale v. Hawkins et al, No. 3:2016cv00219 - Document 93 (S.D. Ohio 2019)

Court Description: DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JAMES HAWKINS' OBJECTIONS TO ENTRY AND ORDER: (1) VACATING PREVIOUSLY ISSUED SCHEDULING ORDER; (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (3)ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT 86 AND DENYING DEFENDANT BRAD PROCTOR'S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER. 88 . Signed by Judge Thomas M. Rose on 2-20-2019. (de)

Download PDF
Dipasquale v. Hawkins et al Doc. 93 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON Charles Dipasquale, Plaintiff, v. Case No. 3:16-cv-219 Judge Thomas M. Rose Mag. Judge Michael J. Newman Detective James Hawkins, et al, Defendants. DECISION AND ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT JAMES HAWKINS’ OBJECTIONS TO ENTRY AND ORDER: (1) VACATING PREVIOUSLY ISSUED SCHEDULING ORDER; (2) GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND (3) ORDERING PLAINTIFF TO FILE AMENDED COMPLAINT (ECF 86) AND DENYING DEFENDANT BRAD PROCTOR’S OBJECTION TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE ORDER. (ECF 88). This matter is before the Court on Defendant James Hawkins’s Objections to Entry and Order: (1) Vacating Previously Issued Scheduling Order; (2) Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; and (3) Ordering Plaintiff to File Amended Complaint (ECF 86) and Defendant Brad Proctor’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Order. (ECF 88). After a review of the record, this Court finds that Magistrate Judge Michael Newman’s decisions were neither clearly erroneous nor contrary to law. Consequently, the Court will deny Defendants’ objections. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that Defendant James Hawkins’s Objections to Entry and Order: (1) Vacating Previously Issued Scheduling Order; (2) Granting Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint; and (3) Ordering Plaintiff to File Dockets.Justia.com Amended Complaint (ECF 86) and Defendant Brad Proctor’s Objection to Magistrate Judge Order (ECF 88) are DENIED. DONE and ORDERED this Wednesday, February 20, 2019. s/Thomas M. Rose ________________________________ THOMAS M. ROSE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.