Bradley v. Bynum
| Doctor Tamika Bradley |
| Doctor William Bynum, In His Individual Capacity |
| 22-60460 |
| August 18, 2022 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Jobs (Civil Rights) |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| UNOPPOSED LEVEL 1 EXTENSION REQUESTED by Appellant Mr. William Bynum for filing Appellant's Brief until 11/03/2022 [22-60460] (Paul Bowie Watkins Jr.) [Entered: 09/23/2022 12:48 PM] |
| EXTENSION RECEIVED for Appellant Mr. William Bynum. Extension Granted in Part to and including 10/19/2022. Reason: Lacking Substantial Reason(s). A/Pet's Brief deadline updated to 10/19/2022 for Appellant William Bynum [22-60460] (MAS) [Entered: 09/23/2022 01:35 PM] |
| TRANSCRIPT ORDER received advising transcript unnecessary (NO hearings) [22-60460] REVIEWED AND/OR EDITED - The original text prior to review appeared as follows: TRANSCRIPT ORDER received from Appellant Mr. William Bynum advising transcript unnecessary for appeal purposes. Date of Service: 08/30/2022 via email - Attorney for Appellants: Mallette, Watkins; Attorney for Appellee: Ross [22-60460] (Pope Shannon Mallette ) [Entered: 08/30/2022 10:15 AM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney Paul Bowie Watkins Jr. for Appellant William Bynum in 22-60460 [22-60460] (MAS) [Entered: 08/26/2022 09:41 AM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Pope Shannon Mallette for party(s) Appellant William Bynum, in case 22-60460 [22-60460] (MAS) [Entered: 08/26/2022 09:38 AM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL FILED. Admitted Exhibits on File in District Court? No. Video/Audio Exhibits on File in District Court? No Electronic ROA deadline satisfied. [22-60460] (DDL) [Entered: 08/25/2022 09:19 AM] |
| BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 10/04/2022 for Appellant William Bynum. [22-60460] (DDL) [Entered: 08/25/2022 09:21 AM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? Yes. [22-60460] (Paul Bowie Watkins Jr.) [Entered: 08/25/2022 10:43 AM] |
| APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? No. [22-60460] (Pope Shannon Mallette ) [Entered: 08/25/2022 10:52 AM] |
| INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9921712-2] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [22-60460] (MAS) [Entered: 08/22/2022 11:29 AM] |
| ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 3:21-CV-334. Electronic ROA due on 09/06/2022. [22-60460] (MAS) [Entered: 08/22/2022 11:32 AM] |
| CIVIL RIGHTS CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. William Bynum [22-60460] (MAS) [Entered: 08/18/2022 03:44 PM] |
Access additional case information on PACER
Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
| Search for this case: Bradley v. Bynum | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellee: Doctor Tamika Bradley | |
| Represented By: | Lisa Mishune Ross 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellant: Doctor William Bynum, In His Individual Capacity | |
| Represented By: | Paul Bowie Watkins Esq. Jr. |
| Represented By: | Pope Shannon Mallette |
| 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 | [ 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.
