Meade v. Bumbaugh
| PHILLIP MEADE |
| oFFICER Joseph Bumbaugh and Officer Bumbaugh |
| 3:2019cv00364 |
| May 7, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Indiana |
| Jon E DeGuilio |
| Michael G Gotsch |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 7, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 7 ANSWER to Complaint and Affirmative Defenses by Officer Bumbaugh.(Holloway, Mark) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Mark A Holloway on behalf of Officer Bumbaugh (Holloway, Mark) |
| Set Deadlines/Hearings: per #5 Defendant Officer Bumbaugh answer due 6/17/2019. (rmc) |
| Filing 5 AGREED NOTICE to extend time to file answer filed by Officer Bumbaugh ; answer due by June 17, 2019. (Stephenson, James) |
| Judge Jon E DeGuilio and Magistrate Judge Michael G Gotsch, Sr added. (NEW CASE) (jld) |
| Filing 3 DEMAND for Trial by Jury by Joseph Bumbaugh. (Stephenson, James) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by James S Stephenson on behalf of Joseph Bumbaugh (Stephenson, James) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL (Filing fee $ 400 receipt number 0755-3884982.) from Kosciusko County, Cause No. 43D01-1903-CT-000012, filed by Joseph Bumbaugh. (Attachments: #1 Alias Summons, Complaint, Appearance (James S. Stephenson), Jury Demand, Notice of Removal, #2 Civil Cover Sheet)(Stephenson, James) |
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 Indiana 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.
