Adam Maskell v. David Harrod
| Adam Maskell |
| David Harrod |
| 23-2671 |
| July 19, 2023 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 8, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| JUDGMENT FILED - The motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is granted. This case is summarily affirmed in accordance with Eighth Circuit Rule 47A. [ # 5302296-2 ] STEVEN M. COLLOTON, DUANE BENTON and JONATHAN A. KOBES Adp Sep 2023 [5314576] [23-2671] (CRJ) [Entered: 09/08/2023 03:02 PM] |
| CASE SUBMITTED Ad Panel Submission before Judges Steven M. Colloton, Duane Benton, Jonathan A. Kobes in St. Louis [5314571] [23-2671] (CRJ) [Entered: 09/08/2023 02:57 PM] |
| MOTION for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis w/attached affidavit, filed by Appellant Mr. Adam Maskell w/service 08/02/2023. [5302296] [23-2671] (AEV) [Entered: 08/02/2023 12:30 PM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of originating court order of 07/25/2023 Denying IFP on appeal. Directing Maskell to pay the $505 fee or file a new motion IFP with the Court of Appeals within 30 days.[5299870] [23-2671] (AEV) [Entered: 07/26/2023 02:42 PM] |
| CLERK ORDER:If the original file of the United States District Court is available for review in electronic format, the court will rely on the electronic version of the record in its review. The appendices required by Eighth Circuit Rule 30A shall not be required. In accordance with Eighth Circuit Local Rule 30A(a)(2), the Clerk of the United States District Court is requested to forward to this Court forthwith any portions of the original record which are not available in an electronic format through PACER, including any documents maintained in paper format or filed under seal, exhibits, administrative records and state court files. These documents should be submitted within 10 days. [5297505] [23-2671] (AEV) [Entered: 07/19/2023 03:44 PM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, Order 6/14/23, Judgment 6/14/23, order 7/7/23,docket entries, [5297503] [23-2671] (AEV) [Entered: 07/19/2023 03:43 PM] |
| CLERK ORDER:The $505 appellate filing and docketing fee has not been paid and is due. Appellant is directed to either pay the fee in the district court or file a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis in this court within 28 days of the date of this order. If appellant does not pay the fee or move for IFP status by 08/16/2023, this appeal may be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice. [5297504] [23-2671] (AEV) [Entered: 07/19/2023 03:43 PM] |
| Civil case docketed. [5297501] [23-2671] (AEV) [Entered: 07/19/2023 03:40 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.
| Search for this case: Adam Maskell v. David Harrod | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff / appellant: Adam Maskell | |
| Represented By: | Adam Maskell |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant / appellee: David Harrod | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
