SULLIVAN v. WARD et al
MARIO ROMOAN SULLIVAN |
COMMISSIONER TIMOTHY C WARD, WARDEN WALTER BARRY, WARDEN DARRIN MYERS, DR MARK A WOODS and JOHN OR JANE DOE |
1:2024cv00012 |
January 22, 2024 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia |
LESLIE ABRAMS GARDNER |
THOMAS Q LANGSTAFF |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. § 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on March 7, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re #1 Complaint, filed by MARIO ROMOAN SULLIVAN; ORDER denying as moot #2 Motion ; denying as moot #3 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; denying as moot #5 Motion. Ordered by US MAGISTRATE JUDGE THOMAS Q LANGSTAFF on 3/7/2024. (asb) |
Filing 5 MOTION for Substitution Filed by MARIO ROMOAN SULLIVAN. (Attachments: #1 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to THOMAS Q LANGSTAFF.(bcl) |
|
Filing 3 MOTION to Appoint Counsel Filed by MARIO ROMOAN SULLIVAN. (Attachments: #1 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to THOMAS Q LANGSTAFF.(bcl) |
Filing 2 MOTION to Add Plaintiff Parties as Class Action Suit Filed by MARIO ROMOAN SULLIVAN. (Attachments: #1 Envelope). Motion(s) referred to THOMAS Q LANGSTAFF.(bcl) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants filed by MARIO ROMOAN SULLIVAN (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support, #2 Summons, #3 Declaration of Plaintiff, #4 Proposed Order, #5 Medical & Water Info, #6 Envelope)(bcl) |
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 Georgia 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.