Gennett Holmes-Smith v. Department of Veterans Affairs, et al
| GENNETT M. HOLMES-SMITH |
| DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, OWCP, VAMC and U.S. DEPARTMENT OF LABOR |
| 22-13575 |
| October 20, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other Personal Injury |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Over the phone extension granted by clerk as to Party Gennett M. Holmes-Smith. Appellants brief due on 12/29/2022, with the appendix due seven days from the filing of the brief. Any request for a second or subsequent extension of time shall be subject to 11th Cir. R. 31-2(d). [Entered: 11/17/2022 02:05 PM] |
| Filing 3 USDC order granting IFP as to Appellant Gennett M. Holmes-Smith was filed on 10/20/2022. Docket Entry 10. [Entered: 10/27/2022 11:10 AM] |
| Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Appellant Gennett M. Holmes-Smith. [Entered: 10/27/2022 09:47 AM] |
| CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Gennett M. Holmes-Smith on 10/17/2022. Fee Status: IFP Granted. No hearings to be transcribed. The appellant's brief is due on or before 11/29/2022. Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 11/09/2022 as to Appellant Gennett M. Holmes-Smith. Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 11/23/2022 as to Appellees Department of Veterans Affairs, OWCP, U.S. Department of Labor and VAMC. The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief [Entered: 10/26/2022 04:56 PM] |
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.
