Reginald Whitley v. Rosana Javate, et al
| REGINALD WHITLEY |
| ROSANA LIM JAVATE, Medical Doctor, RYAN KIM and DUC NGUYEN |
| 21-16808 |
| October 28, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 8, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 Filed order (DIARMUID F. O'SCANNLAIN, SIDNEY R. THOMAS and RICHARD C. TALLMAN): A review of the record demonstrates that this court lacks jurisdiction over this appeal because the district court has not issued any orders that are final or appealable. See 28 U.S.C. 1291. Consequently, this appeal is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. All pending motions are denied as moot. DISMISSED. [12310331] (AF) [Entered: 12/08/2021 02:35 PM] |
| Filing 4 Filed (ECF) Appellee Rosana Lim Javate Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Date of service: 11/23/2021. [12296870] [21-16808] (Cho, Hay-Mie) [Entered: 11/23/2021 02:03 PM] |
| Filing 3 Filed Appellant Reginald Whitley FORM 24 motion for appointemnt of counsel. Deficiencies: None. Served on 11/10/2021. [12290485] (RL) [Entered: 11/17/2021 02:31 PM] |
| Filing 2 Filed Appellant Reginald Whitley FORM 4 motion to proceed In Forma Pauperis. Deficiencies: None. Served on 11/10/2021. [12290479] (RL) [Entered: 11/17/2021 02:30 PM] |
| Filing 1 APPELLANT. SEND MQ: No. The schedule is set as follows: Appellant Reginald Whitley opening brief due 12/27/2021. Appellee Rosana Lim Javate answering brief due 01/25/2022. Appellant's optional reply brief is due 21 days after service of the answering brief. [12271495] (JPD) [Entered: 10/28/2021 11:01 AM] |
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.
