Sherrill v. City of Prattville et al (LEAD CASE)
Case Number: 2:2004cv00760
Filed: August 6, 2004
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office: Montgomery Office
Presiding Judge: Delores R. Boyd
Presiding Judge: Myron H. Thompson
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 6, 2005 Opinion or Order Filing 35 JUDGMENT that pursuant to 33 Stipulation of Dismissal, it is the ORDER, JUDGMENT, and DECREE of the court that plaintiff Tammy Sherrill's case, civil action no. 2:04cv760-T, is dismissed with prejudice, with the parties to bear their own costs. The clerk of the court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/6/2005. (cc, )
October 4, 2005 Opinion or Order Filing 34 ORDERED that plaintiff AQUIA AVERHART's 30 MOTION for Temporary Stay and 30 MOTION for Extension of Time are set for an on-the-record status conference on 10/12/2005 at 8:30 AM. Counsel for plaintiff Averhart is to arrange for the conference to be conducted by telephone. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 10/4/05. (sl, )
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 this case: Sherrill v. City of Prattville et al (LEAD CASE)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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.

Why Is My Information Online?