James Fountain v. Raymond Peterson, et al
Plaintiff / Appellee: JAMES DEAN FOUNTAIN
Defendant / Appellant: RAYMOND PETERSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of the Clinch County Sheriffs Office and JAMES SMITH
Case Number: 22-13672
Filed: October 28, 2022
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 15, 2022 Filing 19 Received paper copies of EAppendix filed by Appellants Raymond Peterson and James Smith. 1 VOLUMES - 2 COPIES [Entered: 12/15/2022 10:29 AM]
December 13, 2022 Filing 18 Appendix filed [1 VOLUMES] by Appellants Raymond Peterson and James Smith. [22-13672] (ECF: Richard Strickland) [Entered: 12/13/2022 02:16 PM]
December 8, 2022 Filing 17 Received 4 paper copies of EBrief, filed by Appellants Raymond Peterson and James Smith. [Entered: 12/08/2022 04:18 PM]
December 7, 2022 Filing 16 Notice to Counsel of Record. Counsel of Record must be logged in to CM/ECF and Pacer to access this document. This is the only notice you will receive regarding this matter. Please print a copy for your file. [Entered: 12/07/2022 04:29 PM]
December 7, 2022 Filing 15 Appellant's brief filed by Raymond Peterson and James Smith. [22-13672] (ECF: Richard Strickland) [Entered: 12/07/2022 03:35 PM]
December 7, 2022 Filing 14 Notice to Counsel of Record. Counsel of Record must be logged in to CM/ECF and Pacer to access this document. This is the only notice you will receive regarding this matter. Please print a copy for your file. [Entered: 12/07/2022 12:11 PM]
November 16, 2022 Filing 13 Civil Appeal Statement filed by Attorney Richard K. Strickland for Appellants Raymond Peterson and James Smith. [22-13672] (ECF: Richard Strickland) [Entered: 11/16/2022 04:50 PM]
November 15, 2022 Filing 12 NOTICE OF CIP FILING DEFICIENCY to William J. Atkins for James Dean Fountain. You are receiving this notice because you have not completed the Web-Based Stock Ticker Symbol Certificate of Interested Persons (CIP) via the Court's public web-page. 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. If you are an appellant or petitioner, upon expiration of 14 days from the date of this notice, your appeal will be dismissed for want of prosecution if the default has not been remedied, pursuant to 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-5(c) and 42-1(b). If you are an appellee or respondent, no action will be taken on documents submitted until the CIP deficiency is remedied. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-5. [Entered: 11/15/2022 02:19 PM]
November 15, 2022 Filing 11 Notice of deficient Appearance of Counsel filed by Tyrone Nathaniel Haugabrook, II for James Dean Fountain. Pursuant to FRAP 25(a)(2)(B)(iii) a person cannot electronically file through another person's account. Please resubmit thru the appropriate account of the ECF filer reflected on the signature block of the filed document. [Entered: 11/15/2022 01:02 PM]
November 15, 2022 Filing 10 Appearance of Counsel Form returned to Attorney Tyrone Nathaniel Haugabrook, II for Appellee James Dean Fountain for failure to file application for admission. [Entered: 11/15/2022 12:45 PM]
November 15, 2022 Filing 9 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION form filed by Attorney Richard K. Strickland for Appellants James Smith and Raymond Peterson. No hearing and No transcript is required for appeal purposes. [Entered: 11/15/2022 12:34 PM]
November 14, 2022 Filing 8 Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by William J. Atkins - Appellee. On the same day the CIP is served, any filer represented by counsel must also complete the court's web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court's website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1(b). [22-13672] (ECF: William Atkins) [Entered: 11/11/2022 01:42 PM]
November 14, 2022 Filing 7 ***NO ACTION TAKEN-see FRAP 25(a)(2)(B)(iii)*** APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Tyrone Nathaniel Haugabrook, II for James Dean Fountain. [22-13672]--[Edited 11/15/2022 by CRL]--[Edited 12/16/2022 by CRL, no renewal fee] (ECF: William Atkins) [Entered: 11/11/2022 10:59 AM]
November 14, 2022 Filing 6 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by William J. Atkins APPELLEE [22-13672] (ECF: William Atkins) [Entered: 11/11/2022 09:06 AM]
November 14, 2022 Filing 5 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Sean Kenneth Scally for Raymond Peterson and James Smith. [22-13672] (ECF: Sean Scally) [Entered: 11/11/2022 08:38 AM]
November 10, 2022 Filing 4 TRANSCRIPT INFORMATION FORM SUBMITTED by Attorney Richard K. Strickland for Appellants Raymond Peterson and James Smith. No hearings. [22-13672] (ECF: Richard Strickland) [Entered: 11/10/2022 03:37 PM]
November 10, 2022 Filing 3 Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Richard K. Strickland for Appellants Raymond Peterson and James Smith. On the same day the CIP is served, any filer represented by counsel must also complete the court's web-based stock ticker symbol certificate at the link here http://www.ca11.uscourts.gov/web-based-cip or on the court's website. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1(b). [22-13672] (ECF: Richard Strickland) [Entered: 11/10/2022 03:34 PM]
November 10, 2022 Filing 2 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Richard K. Strickland for Raymond Peterson and James Smith. [22-13672] (ECF: Richard Strickland) [Entered: 11/10/2022 03:33 PM]
October 28, 2022 CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellants Raymond Peterson and James Smith on 10/28/2022. Fee Status: Fee Paid. No hearings to be transcribed. The appellant's brief is due on or before 12/07/2022. The appendix is due no later than 7 days from the filing of the appellant's brief. Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 11/16/2022 as to Appellant Raymond Peterson. Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 11/30/2022 as to Appellee James Dean Fountain [Entered: 11/02/2022 11:22 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.

Search for this case: James Fountain v. Raymond Peterson, et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff / appellee: JAMES DEAN FOUNTAIN
Represented By: Bradley Miles Hannan
Represented By: Tyrone Nathaniel Haugabrook II
Represented By: Rodney Lawton
Represented By: William J. Atkins
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellant: RAYMOND PETERSON, Individually and in his Official Capacity as Sheriff of the Clinch County Sheriffs Office
Represented By: Sean Kenneth Scally
Represented By: Richard K. Strickland
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant / appellant: JAMES SMITH
Represented By: Sean Kenneth Scally
Represented By: Richard K. Strickland
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?