Keith Doherty v. Mark Borrow, et al
| KEITH ROBERT DOHERTY |
| MARK BORROW, Deputy, in his individual and offical capacity and MARK PHILLIPS, Sergeant |
| 25-13022 |
| September 2, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Prisoner Petitions-Mandamus/Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 25, 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 Keith Robert Doherty failed to pay the filing and docketing fees (or file a motion in the district court for relief from the obligation to pay in advance the full fee) to the district court and failed to comply with the rules on Certificates of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statements within the time fixed by the rules [Entered: 09/25/2025 09:06 PM]
|
| Filing 3 Notice that no action will be taken on Motion to voluntarily dismiss appeal [ # 2 ] filed by Appellant Keith Robert DohertyParty Keith Robert Doherty. Reason(s) no action being taken on filing(s): The filing is deficient for failure to comply with this Court's rules on Certificates of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statements. See 11th Cir. R. 26.1-1.. [Entered: 09/25/2025 08:59 PM] |
| Filing 2 MOTION to voluntarily dismiss appeal filed by Appellant Keith Robert Doherty. Opposition to Motion is Unknown [2] [Entered: 09/25/2025 08:59 PM] |
| Filing 1 PRISONER (PLRA) APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Keith Robert Doherty on 08/29/2025. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid. [Entered: 09/04/2025 02:29 PM] |
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.
