Watts v. Davenport

Petitioner: Daniel Joseph Watts
Respondent: Carter Davenport
Case Number: 1:2015cv00401
Filed: August 10, 2015
Court: Alabama Southern District Court
Office: Mobile Office
County: Mobile
Referring Judge: Katherine P. Nelson
Presiding Judge: William H. Steele
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
February 3, 2016 11 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: It is recommended that this action be dismissed without prejudice for failure to prosecute and to obey the Court's order, and that no Certificate of Appealability should issue. Signed by Chief Judge William H. Steele on 2/2/16. Copy mailed to petitioner at Easterling Correctional Facility. (mbp)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Watts v. Davenport
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Daniel Joseph Watts
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 ]
Respondent: Carter Davenport
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 should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?