Jonathan Mayo v. Chris Walz
| MARK RANKIN HERRING, Attorney General and CHRIS WALZ, Interim Superintendent |
| JONATHAN ONEIL MAYO |
| 20-7229 |
| August 24, 2020 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 14, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 INFORMAL OPENING BRIEF by Jonathan Oneil Mayo. [20-7229] CT [Entered: 09/17/2020 09:55 AM] |
Filing 6
ORDER filed granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [5] Copies to all parties. Mailed to: J. Mayo. [1000804223] [20-7229] CT [Entered: 09/02/2020 11:34 AM]
|
| Filing 5 IFP-APPLICATION to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24)(court access only) by Jonathan Oneil Mayo. [20-7229] CT [Entered: 09/02/2020 11:33 AM] |
| Filing 4 INFORMAL PRELIMINARY BRIEFING ORDER filed. Informal Opening Brief due 09/17/2020 [20-7229] CT [Entered: 08/24/2020 12:25 PM] |
| Filing 3 FEE NOTICE issued to Jonathan Oneil Mayo - initial notice. Fee or application to proceed as indigent due 09/23/2020. Originating case number: 3:20-cv-00215-MHL-RCY.. [20-7229] CT [Entered: 08/24/2020 12:13 PM] |
| Filing 2 ASSEMBLED ELECTRONIC RECORD docketed. Originating case number: 3:20-cv-00215-MHL-RCY. Record in folder? Yes. Record reviewed? Yes. PSR included? N/A. State court paper record requested in 2254 case?No [20-7229] CT [Entered: 08/24/2020 12:10 PM] |
| Filing 1 Habeas corpus appeal docketed. Originating case number: 3:20-cv-00215-MHL-RCY. Date notice of appeal filed: 08/18/2020. Case manager: CathyHerb. Did district court rule on COA? Yes. [20-7229] CT [Entered: 08/24/2020 12:05 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.
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.
