Deon Colvin v. Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, et al
| Deon D. Colvin |
| Anna Blackburne-Rigsby, Corinne A. Beckwith, Catharine Friend Easterly, Roy W. McLeese, III, Joshua Deahl, John P. Howard, III, Vijay Shanker, Vanessa Ruiz, John M. Steadman and Phyllis D. Thompson |
| 26-7075 |
| May 29, 2026 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, D.C. Circuit |
| Other Civil Rights |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 16, 2026. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| CLERK'S ORDER [2183653] filed removing case from abeyance. Setting briefing schedule: APPELLANT Brief due 09/04/2026. APPENDIX due 09/04/2026. Failure to respond shall result in dismissal of the case for lack of prosecution [26-7075] [Entered: 07/16/2026 04:29 PM] |
| NOTICE [2183314] received from the Clerk of the U.S. District Court amending notice of appeal [26-7075] [Entered: 07/15/2026 11:23 AM] |
| REPORT [2181618] filed by Deon D. Colvin abeyance status is ONGOING. Next abeyance status report due by 08/28/2026. [Service Date: 06/29/2026 ] [26-7075] [Entered: 07/02/2026 02:22 PM] |
| PRIVATE CIVIL CASE docketed. [26-7075] [Entered: 05/29/2026 05:12 PM] |
| NOTICE OF APPEAL [2175882] seeking review of a decision by the U.S. District Court in 1:25-cv-03418-UNA filed by Deon D. Colvin. Appeal assigned USCA Case Number: 26-7075. [26-7075] [Entered: 05/29/2026 05:13 PM] |
| CLERK'S ORDER [2175885] filed holding case in abeyance. Case 26-7075 held in abeyance pending decision in 1:25cv3418-UNA from U.S. District Court; The Clerk is directed to transmit a copy of this order to the district court. [26-7075] [Entered: 05/29/2026 05:15 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.
