Courtney McKintrush v. Dustin Hodge
Pulaski County Arkansas, Franklin Snodgrass, individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy with Pulaski County Sheriff's Office, John Does, 1-2, Pulaski County Sheriff's Department and Pulaski County Regional Detention Facility |
Courtney McKintrush |
Dustin Hodge, individually and in his official capacity as a Deputy with Pulaski County Sheriff's Office |
20-1162 |
January 24, 2020 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
Other |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 27, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
CLERK ORDER:Granting in Part [ # 4885018-2 ] motion for extension of time to file brief filed by Mr. David M. Fuqua and Ms. Margaret Diane Depper [4885796] Brief of Dustin Hodge due 03/26/2020. Appendix due on 03/26/2020 [4885796] [20-1162] (MDS) [Entered: 02/27/2020 02:26 PM] |
MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 04/03/2020, filed by Mr. David M. Fuqua for Appellant Mr. Dustin Hodge and Ms. Margaret Diane Depper for Appellant Mr. Dustin Hodge w/service 02/26/2020. [4885018] [20-1162] (DMF) [Entered: 02/26/2020 11:14 AM] |
On December 1, 2016, the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure were amended to require a certificate of compliance for motions filed under Rule 27, certifying that the document complies with the type-volume limitations and stating the number of words in the document. Your recently filed motion did not contain this certificate of compliance. No action will be taken on your motion for extension of time to file brief, [4884215-2], submitted by Mr. David M. Fuqua and Ms. Margaret Diane Depper in 20-1162 , pending the filing of a certificate of compliance using the 'Certificate of Compliance' event. Please do not refile your motion [20-1162] (MDS) [Entered: 02/25/2020 10:47 AM] |
MOTION for extension of time to file brief until 04/03/2020, filed by Ms. Margaret Diane Depper for Appellant Mr. Dustin Hodge and Mr. David M. Fuqua for Appellant Mr. Dustin Hodge w/service 02/24/2020. [4884215] [20-1162]--[Edited 02/27/2020 by MDS - Reason: Motion refiled on 02/26/2020] (DMF) [Entered: 02/24/2020 02:01 PM] |
DESIGNATION of record filed by Appellant Mr. Dustin Hodge. w/service 02/07/2020 [4879566] [20-1162] (MDD) [Entered: 02/07/2020 04:58 PM] |
METHOD of appendix preparation filed by Appellant Mr. Dustin Hodge - Joint Appendix - w/service 02/03/2020 [4879567] [20-1162] (MDD) [Entered: 02/07/2020 04:59 PM] |
STATEMENT of issues filed by Appellant Mr. Dustin Hodge - w/service 02/07/2020. [4879565] [20-1162] (MDD) [Entered: 02/07/2020 04:57 PM] |
UPDATED fee status - [Case Number 20-1162: paid - cs]. Paid in district court on 2/4/2020. [4879239] [20-1162] (CMH) [Entered: 02/07/2020 11:22 AM] |
Certificate of transcript filed by Appellant Mr. Dustin Hodge. No Transcript[4879035] [20-1162] (DMF) [Entered: 02/06/2020 04:05 PM] |
APPEARANCE filed by Margaret Diane Depper for Appellant Mr. Dustin Hodge w/service 02/03/2020 [4877226] [20-1162] (MDD) [Entered: 02/03/2020 10:32 AM] |
APPEARANCE filed by David M. Fuqua for Appellant Mr. Dustin Hodge w/service 02/03/2020 [4877233] [20-1162] (DMF) [Entered: 02/03/2020 10:35 AM] |
Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, docket entries, and Order dated 1/21/2020. [4874607] [20-1162] (CMH) [Entered: 01/24/2020 03:51 PM] |
BRIEFING SCHEDULE SET AS FOLLOWS: Appendix due on 03/04/2020. BRIEF OF APPELLANT Dustin Hodge due 03/04/2020. Appellee brief is due 30 days from the date the court issues the Notice of Docket Activity filing the brief of appellant. [4874614] [20-1162] (CMH) [Entered: 01/24/2020 03:55 PM] |
Civil case docketed. [4874595] [20-1162] (CMH) [Entered: 01/24/2020 03:46 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.