SNYDER v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE
| Timothy S. Snyder |
| Marion County Sheriff's Office |
| 1:2019cv04099 |
| October 3, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Sarah Evans Barker |
| Matthew P Brookman |
| Prisoner Petitions - Prison Condition |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Both |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 25, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 ANSWER to Complaint (Notice of Removal) with Jury Demand , filed by MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE.(Scheil, Andrew) |
| Filing 10 NOTICE of Parties' First Extension of Time, filed by Defendant MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE. (Scheil, Andrew) |
Filing 9
ORDER SETTING INITIAL PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE - The above case is hereby assigned for an INITIAL PRETRIAL CONFERENCE on December 13, 2019 at 11:30 a.m., Indianapolis Time (EST), TELEPHONIC, before the Honorable Matthew P. Brookman, United States Magistrate Judge. The information needed to participate in this telephonic conference will be provided by a separate notification. No fewer than seven (7) days before the IPTC, counsel must file a Proposed CMP. SEE ORDER. Signed by Magistrate Judge Matthew P. Brookman on 10/8/2019.(JRB)
|
| Filing 8 DEMAND for Trial by Jury, filed by Plaintiff TIMOTHY S. SNYDER. (McQuary, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 7 NOTICE of Appearance by Jeffrey S. McQuary on behalf of Plaintiff TIMOTHY S. SNYDER. (McQuary, Jeffrey) |
| Filing 5 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (REO) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew J. Upchurch on behalf of Defendant Marion County Sheriff's Office. (Upchurch, Andrew) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE Supplemental Notice of Removal, filed by Defendant Marion County Sheriff's Office, re #1 Notice of Removal. (Attachments: #1 State Court Record Notice of Removal) (Scheil, Andrew) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew Scheil on behalf of Defendant Marion County Sheriff's Office. (Scheil, Andrew) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL from Marion Superior Court, case number 49D03-1907-CT-029219, filed by Marion County Sheriff's Office. (Filing fee $400, receipt number 0756-5660483) (Attachments: #1 State Court Record CCS, Complaint, Appearance,Appearance, Summons, Appearance, Notice of Automatic Extension of Time, #2 State Court Record Complaint, #3 Civil Cover Sheet)(Scheil, Andrew) |
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 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
| Search for this case: SNYDER v. MARION COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Timothy S. Snyder | |
| Represented By: | Michael Edward Morken |
| Represented By: | Jeffrey S. McQuary |
| 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: Marion County Sheriff's Office | |
| Represented By: | Andrew J. Upchurch |
| Represented By: | Andrew Scheil |
| 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.
