Wicks v. Tucker et al (MAG+)
| David Bryan Wicks, Jr |
| Clarence Tucker and Wells Fargo Bank |
| 2:2018cv00705 |
| August 1, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Montgomery |
| Wallace Capel |
| Emily C Marks |
| Myron H Thompson |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 5, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Case reassigned to Honorable Judge Emily C. Marks. Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson no longer assigned to the case as presiding judge. (djy, ) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by David Bryan Wicks, Jr. (Attachments: #1 application to proceed, #2 supporting document)(djy, ) (Attachment 2 replaced on 8/13/2018 to redact document ) (qc/djy, ). |
Filing 2
ORDER directing that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636, this case is referred to the United States Magistrate Judge for consideration and disposition or recommendation on all pretrial matters as may be appropriate. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 8/7/18. (djy, )
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Clarence Tucker, Wells Fargo Bank, filed by David Bryan Wicks, Jr. (NO FILING FEE NOR IFP RECEIVED)(djy, ) |
| DEMAND for Trial by Jury by David Bryan Wicks, Jr. (NO PDF document attached to this notice-See Docket entry #1 ). (djy, ) |
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
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.
