Carter v. Dusnik et al
| Charlie Carter, III |
| Ashley Dusnik, Ed Brodsky, Anne Hunter and Stephen Mathew Whyte |
| 8:2022cv02605 |
| November 14, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Florida |
| Thomas P Barber |
| Amanda Arnold Sansone |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 22, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 JUDGMENT in favor of Anne Hunter, Ashley Dusnik, Ed Brodsky, Stephen Mathew Whyte against Charlie Carter, III. Signed by Deputy Clerk on 11/22/2022. (CTR) |
Filing 3
ORDER dismissing the #1 civil rights complaint under 28 U.S.C. 1915(e) for failing to state a claim on which relief may be granted. The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #2 is denied as moot. The Clerk is directed to enter a judgment of dismissal against Carter and close this case. Signed by Judge Thomas P. Barber on 11/21/2022. (SRC)
|
| Filing 2 MOTION to Proceed In Forma Pauperis / Affidavit of Indigency by Charlie Carter, III. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(JNB) Motions referred to Magistrate Judge Amanda Arnold Sansone. |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Ed Brodsky, Ashley Dusnik, Anne Hunter, Stephen Mathew Whyte filed by Charlie Carter, III. (Attachments: #1 Mailing Envelope)(JNB) |
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 Florida Middle 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.
