Oliver v. City of Pooler et al
| Anthony Oliver |
| City of Pooler, City of Savannah, City of Bloomingdale, State of Georgia, Nathan Deal, Charles Davis, Adam Willis, Matt Libby, Ashley Brown, Mark Revenew, Blair Jeffcoat, DOES 1-10 Inclusive, City of Port Wentworth and Adrian Gates |
| 4:2018cv00100 |
| May 1, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia |
| Savannah Office |
| Chatham |
| G. R. Smith |
| William T. Moore |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
65
Ordered that the 64 USCA Mandate of the United States Court of Appeals is made the Order of this Court. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 3/18/19. (wwp)
|
|
Filing
63
ORDER denying 61 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 3/14/19. (wwp) Modified on 3/14/2019 (wwp).
|
|
Filing
64
USCA Mandate dismissing the 51 MOTION for writ of Mandamus for want of prosecution. (wwp)
|
|
Filing
59
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 53 dismissing as moot 9 Motion to Dismiss filed by City of Savannah, Mark Revenew, Adrian Gates, 27 Motion to Dismiss filed by Anthony Oliver, 51 Motion for Writ of Mandamus filed by Anthony Oliver, 41 Motion for Extension of Time filed by Nathan Deal, State of Georgia, 44 Motion to Strike, filed by Anthony Oliver, 6 Motion to Dismiss, filed by City of Bloomingdale, Blair Jeffcoat, Ashley Brown, Adam Willis, City of Pooler, City of Port Wentworth, Charles Davis, Matt Libby, 42 Motion to Dismiss filed by Nathan Deal, State of Georgia, 45 Motion for Leave to File, filed by City of Bloomingdale, Blair Jeffcoat, Ashley Brown, Adam Willis, City o f Pooler, City of Port Wentworth, Charles Davis, Matt Libby and imposing conditions. Those conditions are: (1) In addition to paying the Court s filing fee, Oliver must post a $1,000 contempt bond with the Clerk of Court. This bond will be he ld by the Clerk of Court and, if Plaintiff has conducted the affairs in his case appropriately, the bond will be returned to him at its conclusion; (2) Plaintiff must file into this case, and attach to any Complaint he files, a signed affidavit swear ing that he has read Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 and will abide by its provisions and (3) Plaintiff must also attach to his compliant both a photocopy of the Report and Recommendation, recommending dismissal of 4:17CV-101, and the Order Dismis sing the case. All Deadlines are STAYED pending Plaintiff's compliance with these conditions. Plaintiff is also directed that he must file an amended complaint restating any claim he wishes to pursue. Plaintiff's amended complaint is due by March 8, 2019. Plaintiff is on notice that failure to comply with the conditions in this order and file an amended complaint by March 8, 2019 will result in dismissal of this action. Signed by Judge William T. Moore, Jr on 2/28/19. (jrb)
|
|
Filing
56
USCA ORDER: Motion to proceed in forma pauperis filed by Petitioner Anthony Oliver is DENIED in appeal number 19-10011. (jrb)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER terminating 28 Motion for Discovery; denying without prejudice 37 Motion ; terminating 43 Motion to Stay; terminating 48 Motion ; terminating 7 Motion to Stay; terminating 10 Motion to Stay. Signed by Magistrate Judge James E. Graham on 1/29/19. (wwp)
|
|
Filing
4
General ORDER pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26(f). Signed by Magistrate Judge G. R. Smith on 5/1/18. (Attachments: # 1 Notice) (wwp)
|
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 Southern 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.
