Roberts v. City of Booneville, MS
| Pamela Michelle Roberts |
| City of Booneville, Mississippi, Booneville Police Department, Michael Ramey, Aaron Canaday, City of Fulton, Mississippi and Scott Caldwell |
| 25-60144 |
| March 24, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 6, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 CLERK ORDER granting Motion to dismiss appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42 filed by Appellant Ms. Pamela Michelle Roberts. [ # 11 ] [25-60144] (RLL) [Entered: 05/06/2025 10:51 AM] |
| Filing 9 INITIAL CASE CHECK by Attorney Advisor complete. Action: Case OK to Process. [9] Initial AA Check Due satisfied.. Fee due on 05/20/2025 for Appellant Pamela Michelle Roberts [25-60144] (STH) [Entered: 05/05/2025 03:55 PM] |
| Filing 6 APPEARANCE FORM FILED by Attorney(s) Loden Philips Walker for party(s) Appellee Booneville Police Department Appellee Aaron Canaday Appellee Scott Caldwell Appellee City of Booneville, Mississippi Appellee Michael Ramey, in case 25-60144 [25-60144] (ABT) [Entered: 04/28/2025 12:08 PM] |
| Filing 11 MOTION filed by Appellant Ms. Pamela Michelle Roberts to dismiss the appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. P. 42 [11]. Date of service: 04/25/2025. [25-60144] (RLL) [Entered: 05/06/2025 10:47 AM] |
| Filing 5 APPEARANCE FORM for the court's review. Lead Counsel? No. [25-60144] (Loden Philips Walker ) [Entered: 04/21/2025 03:38 PM] |
| Filing 1 CIVIL RIGHTS CASE docketed. NOA filed by Appellant Ms. Pamela Michelle Roberts [25-60144] (STH) [Entered: 03/24/2025 01:54 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.
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.
