Larry Ledford v. Christian Keyes, et al
| LARRY LAMONT LEDFORD |
| CHRISTIAN KEYES and THE LAW OFFICE OF DAYNA THOMAS, LLC |
| 25-13220 |
| September 15, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eleventh Circuit |
| Copyright |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 30, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 Returned Mail was received for Attorney Kenneth Thompson, Jr. for Appellee The Law Office of Dayna Thomas, LLC. IN RE: 10/22/2025 Clerk's Order of Dismissal [Entered: 10/30/2025 02:54 PM] |
Filing 8
ORDER: Pursuant to the 11th Cir. R. 42-1(b), this appeal is DISMISSED for want of prosecution because the appellant Larry Lamont Ledford failed to pay the filing and docketing fees to the district court, or alternatively, file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis in this 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: 10/22/2025 12:09 PM]
|
| Filing 7 NOTICE OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS (CIP) DEFICIENCY issued to Kenneth Thompson, Jr. for The Law Office of Dayna Thomas, LLC. You have failed to complete the Web-Based CIP on the Court's website and have not filed 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: 10/16/2025 04:21 PM] |
| Filing 6 NOTICE OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS (CIP) DEFICIENCY issued to Matthew Alden Boyd for Christian Keyes. You have failed to complete the Web-Based CIP on the Court's website. 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: 10/14/2025 04:29 PM] |
| Filing 5 Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement filed by Attorney Matthew Alden Boyd for Appellee Christian Keyes. 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). [25-13220] (ECF: Matthew Boyd) [Entered: 10/13/2025 12:32 PM] |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS (CIP) DEFICIENCY issued to Larry Lamont Ledford. 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: 10/07/2025 09:17 AM] |
| Filing 3 Returned Mail was received for Attorney Kenneth Thompson, Jr. for Appellee The Law Office of Dayna Thomas, LLC. IN RE: 09/17/2025 Civil Docketing Notice [Entered: 09/26/2025 04:41 PM] |
| Filing 2 APPEARANCE of Counsel Form filed by Matthew Alden Boyd for Christian Keyes. Related cases? Yes. [25-13220] (ECF: Matthew Boyd) [Entered: 09/25/2025 06:07 PM] |
| Filing 1 CIVIL APPEAL DOCKETED. Notice of appeal filed by Appellant Larry Lamont Ledford on 09/12/2025. Fee Status: Fee Not Paid. Awaiting Appellant's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 10/06/2025 as to Appellant Larry Lamont Ledford. Awaiting Appellee's Certificate of Interested Persons due on or before 10/15/2025 as to Appellees Christian Keyes and The Law Office of Dayna Thomas, LLC. [Entered: 09/17/2025 02:16 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.
