Erick Santos Bey v. Commonwealth of Virginia
| ERICK JAVIER SANTOS BEY |
| COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, OFFICER J. M. WOOD, SHANNON TAYLOR and HENRICO COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE |
| 23-6247 |
| March 16, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
| Prisoner Petitions-Mandamus/Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 31, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Rule 42(b) mandate issued. Originating case number: 3:23-cv-00099-JAG-MRC. Mailed to: Erick Javier Santos Bey, #3717228, JESSUP CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, P. O. Box 534, Jessup, MD 20794-0534. [1001341880] [23-6247] NRS [Entered: 03/31/2023 03:33 PM] |
Filing 4
ORDER filed granting motion to dismiss appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b) [ # 3 ]. Copies to all parties. Mailed to: Erick Javier Santos Bey, #3717228, JESSUP CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, P. O. Box 534, Jessup, MD 20794-0534. [1001341876] [23-6247] NRS [Entered: 03/31/2023 03:31 PM]
|
| Filing 3 MOTION by Erick Javier Santos Bey to dismiss appeal pursuant to FRAP 42(b) [3]. Date and method of service: 03/23/2023 US mail. [1001341873] [23-6247] NRS [Entered: 03/31/2023 03:29 PM] |
| Filing 2 PLRA NOTICE issued to [ Erick Javier Santos Bey ]. Fee due to District Court or PLRA application due to Court of Appeals within 15 days. Mailed to: Erick Javier Santos Bey, #3717228, JESSUP CORRECTIONAL INSTITUTION, P. O. Box 534, Jessup, MD 20794-0534. [1001332995] [23-6247] NRS [Entered: 03/16/2023 11:56 AM] |
| Filing 1 Case docketed. Originating case number: 3:23-cv-00099-JAG-MRC. Case manager: NaeemahSims. [1001332940] [23-6247] NRS [Entered: 03/16/2023 11:06 AM] |
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.
