Morgan v. City of Utica, New York
| Peter Morgan |
| City of Utica, New York |
| 22-2849 |
| November 4, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Second Circuit |
| CIVIL RIGHTS-Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 15 DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, LR 31.2 Scheduling Notification, [10], on behalf of Appellant Peter Morgan, copy sent to pro se appellant, FILED.[3437883] [22-2849] [Entered: 12/15/2022 03:45 PM] |
| Filing 13 DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Motion for reversal of judgement, [11], on behalf of Appellant Peter Morgan, copy sent to pro se appellant, FILED.[3437853] [22-2849] [Entered: 12/15/2022 03:32 PM] |
| Filing 12 DEFECTIVE DOCUMENT, Form D-P, [8], on behalf of Appellant Peter Morgan, copy sent to pro se appellant, FILED.[3437826] [22-2849] [Entered: 12/15/2022 03:19 PM] |
| Filing 11 MOTION, for reversal of judgment, on behalf of Appellant Peter Morgan, FILED. Service date 12/12/2022 by US mail.[3437820] [22-2849] [Entered: 12/15/2022 03:16 PM] |
| Filing 10 LR 31.2 SCHEDULING NOTIFICATION, on behalf of Appellant Peter Morgan, informing Court of proposed due date 12/12/2022, RECEIVED. Service date 12/12/2022 by US mail.[3437784] [22-2849] [Entered: 12/15/2022 03:04 PM] |
| Filing 9 ORAL ARGUMENT STATEMENT LR 34.1 (a), on behalf of filer Appellant Peter Morgan, FILED. Service date 12/12/2022 by US mail. [3437772] [22-2849] [Entered: 12/15/2022 03:02 PM] |
| Filing 8 FORM D-P, on behalf of Appellant Peter Morgan, FILED. Service date 12/12/2022 by US mail.[3437769] [22-2849] [Entered: 12/15/2022 03:02 PM] |
Filing 7
ORDER, dated 12/05/2022, dismissing appeal by 12/27/2022, unless Appellant Peter Morgan, submits Form D-P, copy sent to pro se appellant, FILED.[3431158] [22-2849] [Entered: 12/05/2022 02:33 PM]
|
| Filing 6 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FORM, on behalf of Party Peter Morgan, FILED. Service date 11/14/2022 by US mail.[3423238] [22-2849] [Entered: 11/21/2022 10:05 AM] |
| Filing 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT AND NOTICE OF APPEARANCE, on behalf of Appellee City of Utica, New York, FILED. Service date 11/07/2022 by US mail.[3415428] [22-2849] [Entered: 11/07/2022 03:02 PM] |
| Filing 4 INSTRUCTIONAL FORMS, to Pro Se litigant, SENT.[3414440] [22-2849] [Entered: 11/04/2022 01:17 PM] |
| Filing 3 ELECTRONIC INDEX, in lieu of record, FILED.[3414436] [22-2849] [Entered: 11/04/2022 01:12 PM] |
| Filing 2 DISTRICT COURT JUDGMENT, dated 10/25/2022, RECEIVED.[3414434] [22-2849] [Entered: 11/04/2022 01:11 PM] |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF CIVIL APPEAL, with district court docket, on behalf of Appellant Peter Morgan, FILED. [3414428] [22-2849] [Entered: 11/04/2022 01:08 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.
| Search for this case: Morgan v. City of Utica, New York | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: Peter Morgan | |
| Represented By: | Peter Morgan |
| 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 / appellee: City of Utica, New York | |
| Represented By: | Zachary Oren Esq. |
| 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.
