Mohamed v. Sadek
| Magid Salah Eldin Mohamed |
| Hesham A. Sadek, Each in his or her offical and individual capacity, Angelique W. Whitehurst, Each in his or her offical and individual capacity, Andrew R. Zinn, Each in his or her offical and individual capacity, University of Texas Southwestern Medical Center, Bret Evers, Hesham A. Sadek, Each in his or her official and individual capacity, Angelique W. Whitehurst, Each in his or her official and individual capacity and Andrew R. Zinn, Each in his or her official and individual capacity |
| 23-11234 |
| December 12, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 9, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 BRIEFING NOTICE ISSUED A/Pet's Brief Due on 02/20/2024 for Appellant Magid Salah Eldin Mohamed. [23-11234] (PAC) [Entered: 01/09/2024 10:50 AM] |
| Filing 8 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. [23-11234] (PAC) [Entered: 01/09/2024 10:50 AM] |
| Filing 6 ELECTRONIC RECORD ON APPEAL REQUESTED from District Court for 3:23-CV-1835. Electronic ROA due on 12/29/2023. [23-11234] (MVM) [Entered: 12/14/2023 11:01 AM] |
| Filing 5 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [5] Initial AA Check Due satisfied. [23-11234] (MVM) [Entered: 12/14/2023 10:59 AM] |
| Filing 1 CIVIL RIGHTS CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Mr. Magid Salah Eldin Mohamed [23-11234] (RSM) [Entered: 12/12/2023 08:51 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.
