McEwan v. Garland et al
| Leo Worell Dwite McEwan |
| Merrick B. Garland, Alejandro Mayorkas, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Ted Kim and Antonio Donis |
| 1:2024cv00958 |
| March 4, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Georgia |
| Michael L Brown |
| Other Immigration Actions |
| 08 U.S.C. ยง 1329 Writ of Mandamus to Adjudicate Visa Petiti |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 1, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 4 Return of Service Executed by Leo Worell Dwite McEwan. Merrick B. Garland served on 3/12/2024, answer due 5/13/2024. (Claffey, Danielle) Modified to correct service date on 4/1/2024 (kng). |
Filing 3
STANDING ORDER regarding Civil Litigation. Signed by Judge Michael L. Brown on 8/26/2021. (jpk)
|
| Filing 2 Electronic Summons Issued as to Antonio Donis, Merrick B. Garland, Ur Mendoza Jaddou, Ted Kim, Alejandro Mayorkas, and NDGA U.S. Attorney. (jbu) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT for Mandamus Relief filed by Leo Worell Dwite McEwan. (Filing fee $ 405 receipt number AGANDC-13266854) (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Civil Cover Sheet)(jbu) Please visit our website at http://www.gand.uscourts.gov/commonly-used-forms to obtain Pretrial Instructions and Pretrial Associated Forms which includes the Consent To Proceed Before U.S. Magistrate form. |
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 Northern 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.
