Translate
Text Highlighter

Bookmark

PDF

Share

Report a problem
AMICUS AI
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
Are you a practicing lawyer?
Enhance your digital presence and reach by creating a Casemine profile.
Upload pleading to use the new AI search
Cites
Cited by
Citation Codes
Equivalent Citations
citation codes
Docket Number
To access the original judgment, please Sign In or Subscribe.

Hora v. Perry Township

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO

WESTERN DIVISION AT DAYTON

FRANK J. HORA, et al., Plaintiffs, Case No. 3:22-cv-326 vs.

PERRY TOWNSHIP, OHIO, et al., District Judge Michael J. Newman Magistrate Judge Peter B. Silvain, Jr.

Defendants.

________________________________________________________________________________

ORDER: (1) TERMINATING AS MOOT PLAINTIFF'S PRO SE MOTION TO VACATE

THE JANUARY 10, 2025 ORDER CONDITIONALLY DISMISSING THE CASE (Doc. No. 60); AND (2) DENYING WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO RENEWAL PLAINTIFF'S PRO SE MOTION FOR DISQUALIFICATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE CAROLINE H. GENTRY AS MEDIATOR (Doc. No. 67)

________________________________________________________________________________

In this civil case, Plaintiffs bring two federal constitutional claims arising under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Doc. No. 1 at PageID 6-7. While this case was conditionally dismissed on January 10, 2025 (Doc. No. 44), it was reopened on January 16, 2026 due to settlement concerns (Doc. No. 61). Currently pending before the Court are two pro se motions1filed by Plaintiff Frank J. Hora ("Hora"):

(1) a motion to vacate the January 10, 2025 Order conditionally dismissing the case (Doc. No. 60); and (2) a motion for disqualification of Magistrate Judge Caroline H. Gentry as mediator (Doc. No.

67).

Given this Court's Order reopening this case (Doc. No. 61), the pro se motion to vacate is hereby TERMINATED AS MOOT. Doc. No. 60. Additionally, new counsel has entered an appearance on behalf of Plaintiffs, including Hora. Doc. No. 73. Accordingly, the Court DENIES WITHOUT PREJUDICE AND SUBJECT TO RENEWAL Hora's pro se motion for

disqualification. Doc. No. 67.

1 As with all pro se litigants, Plaintiff's documents are liberally construed in his favor. See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam) (citing Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)).

1

2

IT IS SO ORDERED.

August 3, 2026 s/Michael J. Newman Hon. Michael J. Newman

United States District Judge

Use AI to get other relevant cases.

Comments

Hora v. Perry Township
(Aug 3, 2026)