HINES v. 2 CONNERSVILLE CITY POLICEMAN
| BRADLEY L. HINES |
| 2 CONNERSVILLE CITY POLICEMAN |
| 1:2020cv02055 |
| August 5, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Doris L Pryor |
| James R Sweeney |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 30, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 9 CLOSED JUDGMENT - Final Judgment is entered in favor of Defendant 2 Connersville City Policeman and against Plaintiff Bradley L. Hines. Plaintiff shall take nothing by way of his complaint. This is a final judgment under Fed. R. Civ. P. 58 and this case is now closed. (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. mail) Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 9/30/2020. (JDC) |
Filing 8
Order - Plaintiff's Application to Proceed Without Prepaying Fees or Costs ECF No. #6 is denied because Plaintiff's first motion to proceed without prepayment of fees was previously granted. (See ECF No. 4.) The Court's Entry and Order (ECF No. 4) gave Plaintiff through September 10, 2020, within which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. Plaintiff's response to the Entry and Order fails to show any reason why Judgment should not issue. Therefore, the Court finds that Judgment should be issued. (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. mail) Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 9/30/2020. (JDC)
|
| Filing 7 RESPONSE, re #4 Order on Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff BRADLEY L. HINES. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(JDC) |
| Filing 6 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff BRADLEY L. HINES. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(JDC) |
| Filing 5 CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge by BRADLEY L. HINES. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(JDC) |
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Plaintiff shall have through September 10, 2020, in which to show cause why Judgment consistent with this Entry should not issue. ***SEE ORDER FOR ADDITIONAL INFORMATION*** (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. mail) Signed by Judge James R. Sweeney II on 8/10/2020. (JDC)
|
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (REO) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff BRADLEY L. HINES. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(REO) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against 2 CONNERSVILLE CITY POLICEMAN, filed by BRADLEY L. HINES. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(REO) |
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: HINES v. 2 CONNERSVILLE CITY POLICEMAN | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: BRADLEY L. HINES | |
| 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: 2 CONNERSVILLE CITY POLICEMAN | |
| 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.
