K.S. v. Ozark City Board of Education
| K. S. |
| Ozark City Board of Education |
| 1:2021cv00803 |
| December 3, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Emily C Marks |
| Susan Russ Walker |
| Civil Rights: Education |
| 20 U.S.C. ยง 1400 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 3, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 11
ORDER: Upon consideration of the Plf's #10 Notice of Dismissal, which comports with FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this action has been dismissed with prejudice by operation of Rule 41, on the terms agreed to by the parties; The Clerk is DIRECTED to close this case. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 1/3/2022. (bes, )
|
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by All Plaintiffs (Sears, Shane) |
| Filing 9 Return Receipt Card showing service of Summons and #1 Complaint signed by S. Tharpe for Ozark City Board of Education served on 12/16/2021, answer due 1/6/2022. (bes, ) |
|
Filing 8
ORDER: it is ORDERED that the #2 motion to proceed anonymously and motion to file administrative record under seal are GRANTED; The Clerk is DIRECTED to place the administrative record UNDER SEAL pending further order of the Court. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 12/14/2021. (bes, )
|
| Filing 7 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Statement by K. S. re #4 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement. (Sears, Shane) |
| Filing 6 Summons Issued as to Ozark City Board of Education; mailed CMRRR with a copy of the #1 complaint. (bes, ) |
|
Filing 5
ORDER denying #1 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 12/9/2021. (bes, )
|
| Filing 4 Notice of Deficiency requiring filing of Corporate Disclosure/Conflict Statement sent to Plaintiff K. S.; Corporate Disclosures due by 12/20/2021. (Attachments: #1 Corporate/Conflict Disclosure Attachment)(amf, ) |
| Filing 3 MOTION to File Administrative Record Under Seal by K. S.. (Attachments: #1 Administrative Record - Part 1, #2 Administrative Record - Part 2)(amf, ) |
| Filing 2 MOTION to Proceed Anonymously by K. S.. (amf, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Ozark City Board of Education (Filing fee $ 402.00, receipt number 4602065385), filed by K. S.. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Civil Cover Sheet, #5 Filing Fee Receipt)(amf, ) |
| MOTION for Preliminary Injunction by K. S.. (No PDF attached to this entry - See doc #1 for PDF) (amf, ) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: K.S. v. Ozark City Board of Education | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: K. S. | |
| Represented By: | Shane Thomas Sears |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Ozark City Board of Education | |
| 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 | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
