Radford v. British Columbia et al
| Marquis Lamont Radford |
| British Columbia, Columbia, District of, Alabama, State of, America and United State of America |
| 2:2023cv00564 |
| May 3, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Alabama |
| Staci G Cornelius |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 1, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER For the reason as set out the #2 Motion (Application) for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis is DENIED. If Radford wishes to pursue this action, he MUST pay the $402 filing fee within thirty (30) days of the date of this order. If Radford does not pay the filing fee by this deadline, this action may be dismissed without further notice. See FED. R. CIV. P. 41(b). Signed by Magistrate Judge Staci G Cornelius on 6/1/2023. (KSS)
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT of a case to a U. S. magistrate judge for trial. Sent to plaintiff via U. S. First Class Mail. (CTF) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis Motion is RIPE 5/3/2023. Any party may file a motion to reconsider within three (3) business days of a ruling on the motion.Filed by Marquis Lamont Radford. (CTF) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Alabama, State of, America, British Columbia, Columbia, District of, United State of America, filed by Marquis Lamont Radford. (CTF) |
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 Northern 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.
