Elvin Clifford Watkins v. Bob Robert

Plaintiff - Appellant: ELVIN CLIFFORD WATKINS
Defendant - Appellee: BOB ROBERTS, Director and Chief of Police, West Virginia University
Case Number: 14-1542
Filed: June 6, 2014
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date FiledDescription
September 25, 2014 Elvin Watkins v. Bob Roberts

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed#Document Text
September 25, 2014 405158589 Opinion or Order of the Court UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to strike [999397881-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999379514-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00009-GMG-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999442829]. Mailed to: Watkins. [14-1542]
Search for this case: Elvin Clifford Watkins v. Bob Robert
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff - appellant: ELVIN CLIFFORD WATKINS
Represented By: Elvin Clifford Watkins
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant - appellee: BOB ROBERTS, Director and Chief of Police, West Virginia University
Represented By: Thomas Shawn Kleeh
Represented By: Joseph Umberto Leonoro
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.