Seymour v. Dickson

Seymour v. Dickson

Plaintiff:	Joseph Ryan Seymour
Defendant:	Lt. FNU Dickson
Case Number:	6:2017cv00098
Filed:	July 21, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
Office:	Statesboro Office
County:	Tattnall
Presiding Judge:	R. Stan Baker
Presiding Judge:	J. Randal Hall
Nature of Suit:	Prison Condition
Cause of Action:	42 U.S.C. § 1983
Jury Demanded By:	Plaintiff

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
December 6, 2017	Filing 9 ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendations, dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for his failure to follow this Court's Order, and denying Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to close this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/06/2017. (thb)
October 3, 2017	Filing 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's 1 Complaint and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case based on Plaintiff's failure to follow this Court's Order. It is also RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation is ordered to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. (Objections to R&R due by 10/17/2017). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 10/3/2017. (csr)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 6, 2017

Filing 9 ORDER adopting 7 Report and Recommendations, dismissing without prejudice Plaintiff's Complaint for his failure to follow this Court's Order, and denying Plaintiff in forma pauperis status on appeal. The Court directs the Clerk of Court to close this case and enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 12/06/2017. (thb)

October 3, 2017

Filing 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DISMISS without prejudice Plaintiff's 1 Complaint and DIRECT the Clerk of Court to CLOSE this case based on Plaintiff's failure to follow this Court's Order. It is also RECOMMENDED that the Court DENY Plaintiff leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation is ordered to file specific written objections within fourteen (14) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. (Objections to R&R due by 10/17/2017). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 10/3/2017. (csr)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Seymour v. Dickson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Joseph Ryan Seymour
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: Lt. FNU Dickson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?