Dominique Sinclair v. Del Ray, et al
| Dominique G. Sinclair |
| Del Ray, Secretary, Division of Workforce Services, Division of Workforce Services, Research Study, Michelle Ray, Division of Workforce Services/Unemployment office, UAMS Medical Center, Psychiatric Research Studies Labs, Reuben Johnson, Liason for Gyst House, Vince Liddell, Liason for Gyst House, Keien Reynolds, Primary Care Physician, UAMS Family Medical, Keith Bowers, Captain, Craighead County, Sleep Xience, Delvin Reynolds, Medical, Pensacola Lung Group, April Moon, Research Study, St. Bernard's Medical, Reginald Millen, Division of Workforce Services, Research Study and Doe, Medical Team, St. Vincent Medical Research Study |
| 25-2135 |
| June 6, 2025 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Eighth Circuit |
| Prisoner - Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 25, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| MANDATE ISSUED. [5550701] [25-2135] (NDG) [Entered: 08/25/2025 08:26 AM] |
| JUDGMENT FILED - The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [ # 5534312-2 ] has been considered and is granted. The full $605 appellate and docketing fees are assessed against the appellant. Appellant will be permitted to pay the fee by installment method contained in 28 U.S.C. sec. 1915(b)(2). The court remands the calculation of the installments and the collection of the fees to the district court. This case is summarily affirmed in accordance with Eighth Circuit Rule 47A. LAVENSKI R. SMITH, DUANE BENTON and JANE KELLY Adp July 2025 [5541593] [25-2135] (NDG) [Entered: 07/25/2025 03:36 PM] |
| CASE SUBMITTED Ad Panel Submission before Judges Lavenski R. Smith, Duane Benton, Jane Kelly in St. Louis [5541579] [25-2135] (NDG) [Entered: 07/25/2025 03:25 PM] |
| MOTION for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, filed by Appellant Dominique G. Sinclair w/service 07/07/2025. [5534312] [25-2135] (RDB) [Entered: 07/07/2025 02:37 PM] |
| Prisoner case docketed. [5524459] [25-2135] (RDB) [Entered: 06/06/2025 10:45 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of notice of appeal, docket entries, Order dated 5/20/2025, Judgment dated 5/20/2025, IFP Motion dated 6/5/2025 [5524463] [25-2135] (RDB) [Entered: 06/06/2025 10:52 AM] |
| 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. [5524464] [25-2135] (RDB) [Entered: 06/06/2025 10:53 AM] |
| Originating court document filed consisting of originating court order of 06/06/2025 denying motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis, [5524613] [25-2135] (RDB) [Entered: 06/06/2025 02:27 PM] |
| CLERK ORDER:The $605 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 07/07/2025, this appeal may be dismissed for failure to prosecute without further notice. [5524614] [25-2135] (RDB) [Entered: 06/06/2025 02:28 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.
