Bohannon v. Haynes
| Dennis Bohannon and Jamicia Bohannon |
| Nick Haynes |
| 3:2023cv00120 |
| May 22, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| D P Marshall |
| Civil Rights: Jobs |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 e Job Discrimination (Employment) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 16, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re #3 Notice - Affidavit of Service. CORRECTION: The original document was attached in error (illegible image file) due to a clerical mistake by the Clerk's office. The correct document was added to docket entry #3 and is attached hereto for review by the parties. (jak) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE - Affidavit of Service by Dennis Bohannon. (wbb) (Additional attachment(s) added on 7/13/2023: #1 Main Document - Correct) (jak). |
Filing 2
INITIAL ORDER FOR PRO SE PLAINTIFFS. Signed by Chief Judge D. P. Marshall Jr. on 6/20/2023. (jak)
|
| NOTICE OF DOCKET CORRECTION re #1 Complaint. CORRECTION: The docket text was modified to correct the filing party as "Dennis Bohannon" as indicated by the document. (cmn) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Nick Haynes filed by Dennis Bohannon. Fee of $402 paid, Receipt No. JON157. Summons issued and returned to plaintiff for service. (wbb) (Docket text modified on 5/31/2023 to correct the filing party.)(cmn) |
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 Arkansas Eastern 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.
