Mattingly v. McDonough
| DALE C. MATTINGLY |
| DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs |
| 22-1265 |
| December 15, 2021 |
| U.S. Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit |
| Other |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 15, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 1 Appeal docketed. Received: 12/13/2021. [818938] Fee/IFP due on 12/29/2021. Entry of Appearance due 12/29/2021. Certificate of Interest is due on 12/29/2021. Docketing Statement due 01/14/2022. Appellant's brief is due 02/14/2022. [KMH] [Entered: 12/15/2021 03:09 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: Mattingly v. McDonough | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Claimant: DALE C. MATTINGLY | |
| Represented By: | Harold Hamilton Hoffman III |
| 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 ] |
| Respondent / appellee: DENIS MCDONOUGH, Secretary of Veterans Affairs | |
| Represented By: | Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, U.S. Department of Justice |
| 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.
