3:26-cv-00013•Moore v. City of Dayton Law Department et al
Full text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO WESTERN DIVISION (DAYTON) STEPHEN MOORE, Plaintiff, vs. CITY OF DAYTON LAW DEPARTMENT, et al., Defendants. : : : : : : : : : Case No. 3:26-cv-00013 District Judge Thomas M. Rose Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry ORDER CONCERNING COMMUNICATION WITH THE COURT Plaintiff, a pro se litigant, has called the Court to inquire about the status of his filings. The proper way for a litigant to communicate with the Court is by written motion filed with the Clerk of Court. To avoid any attempted ex parte communications, Plaintiff is ORDERED to communicate with the Court solely by motion, not via telephone call or other informal methods of communication. Plaintiff may communicate with the Clerk of Court’s office to determine if additional documents have been filed on the public docket for his case. He may also find and view the public case docket online by using the PACER Case Locator tool available at https://pcl.uscourts.gov/pcl/index.jsf. IT IS SO ORDERED. s/Caroline H. Gentry Caroline H. Gentry United States Magistrate Judge Case: 3:26-cv-00013-TMR-CHG Doc #: 12 Filed: 01/21/26 Page: 1 of 1 PAGEID #: <pageID>
Wondering how this text applies to your situation?
Free consultation, no commitment
Describe your situation. Our team will contact you by email about your consultation.
Continue your research in ChatGPT or Claude
Connect Omnilex to search the legal corpus from your AI assistant.