Frederick Stampone v. Sarah Schroeder, et al
| FREDERICK STAMPONE |
| MARQUETTE BRANCH PRISON, MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, SARAH SCHROEDER, Warden, individual and official capacities, HEIDI E. WASHINGTON, Director, individual and official capacities, D. COLE, Officers, individual and official capacities, OFFICER SNIVELY, individual and official capacities, OFFICER NADEAU, individual and official capacities, SERGEANT MANKEE, individual and official capacities, M. NEUBECKER, Lieutenant, individual and official capacities, E. HEMMILA, Hearing Investigator, individual and official capacities, JOSHUA KOCHA, Medical Provider, individual and official capacities, ROBIN MCCARTHY, Business Manager, individual and official capacities, DANA NESSEL, Attorney General, individual and official capacities, STATE OF MICHIGAN, Attorney General, individual and official capacities, QUENTIN BOLTON, Grievance Coordinator, individual and official capacities, LARRY BURNETTE, Lieutenant, individual and official capacities, SERGEANT TIKANEN, individual and official capacities, CAPTAIN WATSON, individual and official capacities and MICHELLE WEALTON, Deputy Warden, individual and official capacities |
| 25-2151 |
| December 18, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit |
| Prison Condition |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 11, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 TENDERED notice of appeal of all orders and judgments entered in this case. See letter sent 05/01/2026. Received from Party Mr. Frederick Stampone. (BLH) [Entered: 05/11/2026 11:28 AM] |
| Filing 11 LETTER SENT to Mr. Frederick Stampone, returning unfiled petition for rehearing en banc. Motion for extension of time to file a petition for rehearing en banc was denied on 04/20/2026. (BLH) [Entered: 05/01/2026 12:44 PM] |
Filing 10
ORDER: Upon consideration of the appellants motion for an extension of time to file a petition for rehearing en banc, It is ORDERED that the motion is DENIED [ # 9 ]. Karen Nelson Moore, John B. Nalbandian, and Chad A. Readler, Circuit Judges. (BLH) [Entered: 04/20/2026 01:33 PM]
|
| Filing 9 Appellant MOTION filed by Mr. Frederick Stampone to extend time to (no date listed) to file a petition for rehearing en banc. Certificate of service: 03/24/2026. (BLH) [Entered: 04/01/2026 10:29 AM] |
| Filing 8 LETTER SENT to Mr. Frederick Stampone in response to his letter dated 03/12/2026. (BLH) [Entered: 03/16/2026 03:05 PM] |
| Filing 7 ENTRY OF JUDGMENT. (RO) [Entered: 03/03/2026 01:32 PM] |
|
Filing 6
ORDER filed to dismiss case for lack of jurisdiction. Stampones failure to file a timely notice of appeal deprives this court of jurisdiction. No mandate to issue, decision not for publication. Karen Nelson Moore, Circuit Judge; John B. Nalbandian, Circuit Judge and Chad A. Readler, Circuit Judge. (RO) [Entered: 03/03/2026 01:30 PM]
|
| Filing 5 Copy of District Court Order filed granting in forma pauperis. Entered 1/26/2026. (RO) [Entered: 01/27/2026 09:01 AM] |
| Filing 4 RESPONSE filed to the show cause for late noa, [ # 3 ]. Response filed by Party Mr. Frederick Stampone. Certificate of Service:01/07/2026. (RO) [Entered: 01/15/2026 03:19 PM] |
| Filing 3 SHOW CAUSE order filed to have Appellant Mr. Frederick Stampone show cause for the filing of a late notice of appeal. Response due by 01/09/2026 for Frederick Stampone. (RO) [Entered: 12/19/2025 12:45 PM] |
| Filing 2 Update fee status change to pending in the district court. (RO) [Entered: 12/18/2025 03:21 PM] |
| Filing 1 Prisoner Case Docketed. Notice filed by Appellant Mr. Frederick Stampone. Transcript needed: n. (RO) [Entered: 12/18/2025 03:17 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.
