McClain v. Davis et al
| Claude McClain |
| Blake R. Davis, Unknown, B. Vauhn, S. Cedeno, C. Porcko, Saver, A. Barker and S. Beicker |
| 1:2012cv00673 |
| March 16, 2012 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Fremont |
| Boyd N. Boland |
| Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
53
ORDER Denying Motion to Reconsider. ORDERED that the Motion Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. (60(a) to Correct Error 52 is construed as a Motion to Reconsider filed pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and is denied, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 2/5/13. (sgrim)
|
|
Filing
37
ORDER DENYING MOTION TO RECONSIDER re: 36 Letter filed by Claude McClain, 35 Letter filed by Claude McClain. The Court construes the Letters as a Motion to Reconsider, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/15/12. (lswsl, )
|
|
Filing
33
ORDER of Dismissal. Complaint and action are dismissed without prejudice for failure to pay fee or in the alternative to show cause. Leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is denied. All pending motions are denied as moot ( 10 Motion for Order; 11 Motion for Ruling; 19 Motion for Order; 20 Motion for Order; 27 Motion for Order; 31 Motion for Order), by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 6/4/12.(gmssl, )
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER Construing Action as a Prisoner Complaint and Directing Plaintiff to Cure Deficiencies, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 3/19/12. (lyg, )
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
