Timothy Cunningham, Sr. v. Marcus Jenkins, et al
TIMOTHY J. CUNNINGHAM, SR. |
MARCUS JENKINS and ILLINOIS DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS |
21-2481 |
August 12, 2021 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Seventh Circuit |
Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 1, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 8 ORDER: Appellant Timothy J. Cunningham, Sr. is directed to file the overdue Docketing Statement within 14 days from the date of this Rule to Show Cause. Docketing statement response due for Appellant Timothy J. Cunningham Sr. by 10/15/2021. Sent Certified Mail. Receipt Number: 7019 0700 0000 6008 4736. [8] [7189354] [21-2481] (AD) [Entered: 10/01/2021 11:01 AM] |
Filing 7 ORDER: On consideration of the Jurisdictional Memorandum filed by appellant on September 20, 2021, appellant shall file, on or before October 5, 2021, a status report regarding the disposition of appellants motion for new trial. Briefing shall continue to be SUSPENDED pending further court order. DW [7] [7187061] [21-2481] (AD) [Entered: 09/21/2021 02:29 PM] |
Filing 6 Jurisdictional memorandum filed by Appellant Timothy J. Cunningham, Sr.. [6] [7186701] [21-2481] (LCP) [Entered: 09/20/2021 02:03 PM] |
Filing 5 ORDER: A preliminary review of the short record indicates that the order appealed from may not be a final appealable judgment within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. 1291. A notice of appeal filed before the district court issues its ruling on a timely Rule 59 motion is ineffective until the order disposing of the motion is entered on the district court's civil docket. Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4). Appellant shall file a brief memorandum stating why this appeal should not be STAYED pending the entry of the order disposing of the motion. Briefing is SUSPENDED pending further court order. (See order for further details). DW [5] Jurisdictional memorandum due for Appellant Timothy J. Cunningham Sr. by 09/21/2021. [5] [7184071] [21-2481] (HTP) [Entered: 09/07/2021 04:56 PM] |
Filing 4 FILED NOTICE FROM THE DISTRICT COURT THAT THE $505.00 APPELLATE FEE WAS RECEIVED. [4][7182303] [21-2481] (CM) [Entered: 08/30/2021 02:18 PM] |
Filing 3 ORDER re: Motion to correct timing of the notice of appeal. The appellants motion to vacate his notice of appeal is DENIED without prejudice to renewal. The appellant correctly states that his notice of appeal, filed after the court entered judgment but before it disposed of the appellants motion for new trial, is not effective until the district court enters an order resolving his motion for new trial. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A)(v); 4(a)(4)(B)(i). If the district court grants the appellants motion for new trial, this court can administratively close the appeal. If the district court denies the motion for new trial, this appeal will become effective and the appellant may file an amended notice of appeal challenging the new order; no additional filing fee is required to file an amended notice. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(B)(ii), (iii). [ # 2 ] [3] [7181976] XCR [21-2481] (ER) [Entered: 08/27/2021 12:40 PM] |
Filing 2 Pro se motion filed by Appellant Timothy J. Cunningham, Sr. to vacate the notice of appeal. (Forwarded from the District Court) [2] [7181562] [21-2481] (PS) [Entered: 08/26/2021 09:38 AM] |
Filing 1 State prisoner's civil rights case docketed. IT IS ORDERED that this appeal is subject to the Prison Litigation Reform Act. Proceedings are SUSPENDED pending notification by the district court that any necessary fee has been assessed, and if assessed, paid. PLRA Fee due. Docketing Statement due for Appellant Timothy J. Cunningham Sr. by 08/19/2021. PLRA Fee/Motion/Memorandum due on 09/13/2021. Transcript information sheet due by 08/26/2021. [1] [7178713] [21-2481] (AG) [Entered: 08/12/2021 12:31 PM] |
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.