Ryan Savinell v. Jody Bradley, Warden, et al
| UNIT MANAGER DIANIA WALKER, UNIT MANAGER UNKNOWN BROWN, TRACEY ARBUTHNOT, Case Manager Supervisor and JODY BRADLEY, WARDEN, WILKINSON COUNTY CORRECTIONAL FACILITY |
| RYAN SAVINELL |
| 19-60261 |
| April 22, 2019 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 29, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| DISTRICT COURT ORDER of 05/15/2019 denying IFP for Appellant Mr. Ryan Savinell because appeal is not taken in good faith - fee assessed - BAUGH case.Fee due or file motion for IFP in 5CCA on 06/28/2019 for Appellant Ryan Savinell [19-60261] (LEF) [Entered: 05/29/2019 03:54 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Review after Fee Issue is Resolved (PLRA case). [9051402-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [19-60261] (CCR) [Entered: 05/13/2019 02:41 PM] |
| DISTRICT COURT NOTICE - IFP pending for Appellant Mr. Ryan Savinell. Fee deadline satisfied. [19-60261] (CCR) [Entered: 05/10/2019 04:09 PM] |
| CASE CAPTION updated. Additional appeal filed. [9050453-2] NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Ryan Savinell. [9050453-1] [19-60261] (CCR) [Entered: 05/10/2019 04:05 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete, Action: Review after Fee Issue is Resolved (PLRA case). [9043915-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Fee or motion for IFP in DC due on 06/26/2019 for Appellant Ryan Savinell [19-60261] (CBW) [Entered: 05/02/2019 04:07 PM] |
| PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Ryan Savinell [19-60261] (CBW) [Entered: 04/22/2019 09:56 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.
