Montgomery Carl Akers v. Katherine N. Siereveld et al
| Montgomery Carl Akers |
| Jamie Conover, Does 1 to 20 and Katherine N. Siereveld |
| 8:2021cv01074 |
| June 17, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Central District of California |
| Cormac J Carney |
| Douglas F McCormick |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. § 1441 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 9, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 16 JUDGMENT by Judge Cormac J. Carney, Related to: R&R - Accepting Report and Recommendations #15 . IT IS ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff's re-filing it with payment of the civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. 1914(a). (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (et) |
Filing 15
ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge Cormac J. Carney for Report and Recommendation (Issued) #13 . The Court accepts the findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge.IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this case be dismissed without prejudice to Plaintiff re-filing it with payment of the civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. 1914(a). Plaintiff is expressly warned that future IFP filings are likely to be barred and may result in filing restrictions and other sanctions, as appropriate. (et)
|
| Filing 14 OBJECTION to Report and Recommendation (Issued), #13 filed by plaintiff Montgomery Carl Akers.(es) |
| Filing 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION issued by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. IT IS RECOMMENDED that the District Judge issue an Order: (1) accepting this Report and Recommendation; (2) dismissing this case without prejudice to Plaintiffs re-filing it with payment of the civil and administrative filing fees required by 28 U.S.C. 1914(a); (3) warning Plaintiff that future IFP filings are likely to be barred and may result in filing restrictions and other sanctions, as appropriate; and (4) directing the Clerk of Court to enter a judgment of dismissal and to close the file. Objections to R&R due by 7/22/2021. (nbo) |
| Filing 12 NOTICE OF FILING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION by Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. Objections to R&R due by 7/22/2021. (nbo) |
| Filing 11 NOTICE TO FILER OF DEFICIENCIES in Electronically Filed Documents RE: Notice (Other) #7 . The following error(s) was/were found: Incorrect event selected. Correct event to be used is: Request (for order) to substitute party. Proposed Document was not submitted as separate attachment. In response to this notice, the Court may: (1) order an amended or correct document to be filed; (2) order the document stricken; or (3) take other action as the Court deems appropriate. You need not take any action in response to this notice unless and until the Court directs you to do so. (twdb) |
|
Filing 9
(IN CHAMBERS) ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney REFERRING MATTER TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The Court has reviewed the REQUEST TO STAY PENDING SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1915A #8 filed on June 23, 2021. This request is referred to Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. THERE IS NO PDF DOCUMENT ASSOCIATED WITH THIS ENTRY. (rrp) TEXT ONLY ENTRY
|
|
Filing 10
ORDER by Judge Cormac J. Carney: Granting #8 REQUEST to Stay pending SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1915A #8 . (twdb)
|
| Filing 8 REQUEST to Stay pending SCREENING UNDER 28 U.S.C. 1915A filed by Defendants Jamie Conover, Katherine N. Siereveld. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1-3, #2 Exhibit 4, #3 Proposed Order, #4 Proof of Service) (Tursi, Joseph) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF SUBSTITUTION filed by Defendants Jamie Conover, Katherine N. Siereveld. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Proof of Service)(Tursi, Joseph) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR: Due to clerical error Re: Deficiency in Attorney Case Opening - optional html form, #5 . Document # 5 Due to clerical error. The docket clerk docketed the Notice of Deficiencies in error. (ghap) |
| Filing 5 [NOTICE OF CLERICAL ERROR ISSUED ON 6/21/2021, SEE DOCKET ENTRY NO. 6] NOTICE OF DEFICIENCIES in Attorney Case Opening RE: Notice of Removal (Attorney Civil Case Opening), #1 . The following error(s) was found: No Notice of Interested Parties has been filed. A Notice of Interested Parties must be filed with every partys first appearance. See Local Rule 7.1-1. Counsel must file a Notice of Interested Parties immediately. Failure to do so may be addressed by judicial action, including sanctions. See Local Rule 83-7. (ghap) Modified on 6/21/2021 (ghap). |
| Filing 4 NOTICE TO PARTIES OF COURT-DIRECTED ADR PROGRAM filed. (ghap) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF ASSIGNMENT to District Judge Cormac J. Carney and Magistrate Judge Douglas F. McCormick. (ghap) |
| CONFORMED FILED COPY OF COMPLAINT against Defendants Jamie Conover, Does 1-20, Katherine N. Siereveld., filed by plaintiff Montgomery Carl Akers.(FILED IN STATE COURT ON 1/20/2021 SUBMITTED ATTACHED EXHIBIT 1) (ghap) |
| Filing 2 CIVIL COVER SHEET filed by Defendants Jamie Conover, Katherine N. Siereveld. (Tursi, Joseph) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Superior Court of the State of California for the County of Orange, case number 30-2021-01180251-CU-CR-CJC No Fee Required - US Government, filed by Defendants Jamie Conover, Katherine N. Siereveld. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1, #2 Proof of Service) (Attorney Joseph William Tursi added to party Jamie Conover(pty:dft), Attorney Joseph William Tursi added to party Katherine N. Siereveld(pty:dft))(Tursi, Joseph) |
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 California Central 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.
