Devandal Thomas v. Gonzales Espino, Jr., et al
| HADDAD, J. MILLER, L. M. HEISTAND and GONZALES A. ESPINO, JR. |
| DEVANDAL BERNARD THOMAS |
| 20-10250 |
| January 21, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 25, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant Devandal Bernard Thomas. [Entered: 02/26/2020 09:22 AM] |
| ENTRY OF DISMISSAL: Pursuant to the 11th Cir.R.42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the appellant Devandal Bernard Thomas has failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court within the time fixed by the rules. [Entered: 02/21/2020 05:42 PM] |
| NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to Devandal Bernard Thomas. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Certificate of Interested Persons (CIP). Failure to comply with 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-1 through 26.1-4 may result in dismissal of the case or appeal under 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), return of deficient documents without action, or other sanctions on counsel, the party, or both. [Entered: 02/10/2020 03:43 PM] |
| USDC order denying IFP and denying appointment of counsel as to Appellant Devandal Bernard Thomas was filed on 01/21/2020. Docket Entry 14. [Entered: 01/27/2020 12:28 PM] |
| PRISONER (PLRA) APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Devandal Bernard Thomas on 01/17/2020. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid. No hearings to be transcribed. [Entered: 01/27/2020 11:15 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
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.
