Harold Jean-Baptiste v. DOJ, et al
| Harold Jean-Baptiste |
| United States Department of Justice, Merrick B. Garland, Attorney General of the United States, Head of the United States Department of Justice; Named in his official capacity, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Christopher A. Wray, Director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation and Civil Process Clerk for the U.S. Attorney's Office |
| 24-5070 |
| March 28, 2024 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 28, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CERTIFIED AND FIRST CLASS MAIL SENT [2047196] with return receipt requested [Receipt No.7021 0350 0001 9947 4860] of order [ # 2047187-5 ]. Certified Mail Receipt due 04/29/2024 from Harold Jean-Baptiste. [24-5070] [Entered: 03/28/2024 10:12 AM] |
| CLERK'S ORDER [2047187] filed directing party to file motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis or payment of docketing fee. APPELLANT payment of docketing fee or motion to proceed in forma pauperis in district court due 04/29/2024. Failure to respond shall result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution; The Clerk is directed to mail this order to appellant by certified mail, return receipt requested and by 1st class mail. [24-5070] [Entered: 03/28/2024 09:49 AM] |
| NOTICE OF APPEAL [2047184] seeking review of a decision by the U.S. District Court in 1:23-cv-00432-RC filed by Harold Jean-Baptiste. Appeal assigned USCA Case Number: 24-5070. [24-5070] [Entered: 03/28/2024 09:30 AM] |
| US CIVIL CASE docketed. [24-5070] [Entered: 03/28/2024 09:28 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.
