Antione Cook v. Kandy Fatheree, et al
| ANTIONE D. COOK |
| KANDY FATHEREE, Summit County Sheriff, JANE DOE, #1 Deputy Sheriff (0627), JOHN DOE, #1 Deputy Sheriff (1576), JOHN S. CRISTIE, SR., Ohio Adult Parole Authority Officer, JOHN ZUBICK, Ohio Adult Parole Authority Officer, ASHLEY DIMARCO, Ohio Adult Parole Authority Officer and JOSHUA SNYDER, Special Agent |
| 25-3669 |
| August 22, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 15, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 6 NOTIFICATION filed by Mr. Antione D. Cook regarding cellphone seized illegally as a result of a Retaliation Act. (MMP) [Entered: 10/17/2025 11:47 AM] |
| Filing 5 NOTIFICATION filed by Mr. Antione D. Cook regarding regarding Brady violation addressed to the U.S. District Court with documentation in support after Brady violation. (MMP) [Entered: 10/17/2025 11:42 AM] |
| Filing 4 4A4 ORDER from district court filed. Order Filed: 09/12/2025 (MMP) [Entered: 09/23/2025 02:27 PM] |
| Filing 3 FILED: supporting evidence of malicious prosecution, false arrest, false imprisonment, retalitory prosecution, slander, libel, perjury, making a false report by Mr. Antione D. Cook. (MMP) [Entered: 09/05/2025 02:27 PM] |
| Filing 2 4a4 Notice filed. Case held in abeyance pending a ruling on the motion for reconsideration filed in the district court on 8/15/2025 RE #6. (MMP) [Entered: 08/22/2025 03:57 PM] |
| Filing 1 Prisoner Case Docketed. Notice filed by Appellant Mr. Antione Cook. Transcript needed: n. (MMP) [Entered: 08/22/2025 03:55 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.
