NGOYI v. WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER CORPORATION et al
| MWABILU L. NGOYI |
| ROSHAN MARTIN BASHIR, WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER CORPORATION and OWEN SCHWARTZ |
| 1:2020cv00167 |
| January 18, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of Columbia |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 30, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER DISMISSING PRO SE CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Ordered that the #2 application of the plaintiff to proceed in forma pauperis is granted. This is a final appealable Order. Pro Se party has been notified by first class mail. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 1/27/2020. (zrdj)
|
| Filing 3 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Amit P. Mehta on 1/27/2020. (zrdj) |
| Initiating Pleading & IFP Application Received on 1/18/2020. A copy of the docket sheet has been mailed to the address of record for the pro se party. (zmd) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by MWABILU L. NGOYI (Attachments: #1 Additional Documents to the IFP) (zmd) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against ROSHAN MARTIN BASHIR, OWEN SCHWARTZ, WASHINGTON HOSPITAL CENTER CORPORATION with Jury Demand filed by MWABILU L. NGOYI. #1 Additional Documents to the Complaint, #2 Document #1, #3 Document #2, #4 Document #3, #5 Document #4, #6 Civil Cover Sheet) (zmd). |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 District Of Columbia 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.
