Peters v. Hoyt
| Michael G. Peters |
| Kenneth M. Hoyt, U.S. District Judge and State of Texas |
| 21-20612 |
| November 23, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CLERK ORDER dismissing appeal pursuant to 5th Circuit Rule 42 for failure to pay fee [9756546-2] [21-20612] (DLM) [Entered: 01/17/2022 10:20 AM] |
| IN ACCORDANCE WITH 5TH CIRCUIT RULE 42.3.1, the appeal is subject to dismissal in 15 days for failure to comply with the initial written deadline. Fee deadline updated to 01/11/2022 for Appellant Michael G. Peters [21-20612] (CCR) [Entered: 12/27/2021 04:46 PM] |
| DOCUMENT RECEIVED - NO ACTION TAKEN. No action will be taken on the document titled Appeal received from Appellant Mr. Michael G. Peters which seeks to reinstate the appeal, because he has mistakenly viewed the court's transmittal notice of his appeal to the district court that indicates the appeal was erronoesouly filed with this court, as this court denying his appeal. The appeal is proceeding accordingly and he is reminded that the filing fee is due by 12/21/21. [21-20612] (DLM) [Entered: 12/07/2021 12:36 PM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9726547-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Fee due on 12/21/2021 for Appellant Michael G. Peters [21-20612] (CCR) [Entered: 12/06/2021 09:05 AM] |
| PRISONER CASE WITHOUT COUNSEL docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Michael G. Peters [21-20612] (ABT) [Entered: 11/23/2021 11:10 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.
