Michael Longs Bey v. Shamika, et al
| MICHAEL JAMES LONGS BEY |
| SHAMIKA, STAFF AT THE U.S. DISTRICT COURT, U.S. MARSHALS SERVICE and FEDERAL AUTHORITIES UNDER THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE |
| 25-12781 |
| August 13, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Other Statutory Actions |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 23, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER: Pursuant to the 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the appellant Michael James Longs Bey failed to comply with the rules on Certificates of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statements within the time fixed by the rules [Entered: 09/23/2025 02:11 PM]
|
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS (CIP) DEFICIENCY issued to Michael James Longs Bey. You have failed to file the standalone CIP. If you are an appellant or petitioner, pursuant to 11th Cir. Rules 26.1-5(c) and 42-1(b), this appeal will be dismissed without further notice upon the expiration of 14 days from the date of this notice unless you remedy the default(s). [Entered: 09/03/2025 02:29 PM] |
| Filing 2 USDC order denying IFP as to Appellant Michael James Longs Bey was filed on 08/22/2025. Docket Entry 16. [Entered: 09/03/2025 11:36 AM] |
| Filing 1 CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Michael James Longs Bey on 08/13/2025. Fee Status: IFP Pending. Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 09/02/2025 as to Appellant Michael James Longs Bey.USDC motion pending: Motion IFP DE 12 filed on 08/13/2025. [Entered: 08/14/2025 09:13 AM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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.
