STINSON et al v. US BANK NA
| US BANK NA, RUFUS STINSON, JR and SANDRA J STINSON |
| STINSON |
| 5:2016cv00527 |
| December 2, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia |
| Macon Office |
| Upson |
| C ASHLEY ROYAL |
| MARC THOMAS TREADWELL |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| Defendant |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 21, 2017. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 JUDGMENT in favor of US BANK NA against RUFUS STINSON, JR, SANDRA J STINSON (ans) |
Filing 2
ORDER Dismissing Case without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL on 6/16/2017. (lap)
|
| Notice of Deficiency (related document(s): #1 Notice of Removal filed by SANDRA J STINSON, RUFUS STINSON, JR ); You must either pay the filing fee or submit a properly completed Motion to Proceed In Forma Pauperis within 21 days from the date of this notice - Failure to comply with this notice may result in dismissal by the court - An Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit are enclosed. (ans) |
| Case Reassigned to US DISTRICT JUDGE C ASHLEY ROYAL. US DISTRICT JUDGE MARC THOMAS TREADWELL no longer assigned to the case. (ans) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by SANDRA J STINSON, RUFUS STINSON, JR,filed by SANDRA J STINSON, RUFUS STINSON, JR. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(ans) |
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.
