WOOTEN v. HUGHES et al
| RONALD T. WOOTEN |
| KENTON HUGHES and PEACE OF MIND PEST CONTROL |
| 1:2022cv00545 |
| March 18, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Indiana |
| Doris L Pryor |
| Richard L Young |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 1, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 CONSENT to Jurisdiction to US Magistrate Judge by RONALD T. WOOTEN. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(AAS) |
Filing 4
ENTRY GRANTING IFP STATUS AND DISMISSING CASE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION - Mr. Wooten's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis #2 is GRANTED. Mr. Wooten is ORDERED to pay the $0.66 initial partial filing fee. Mr. Wooten's Complaint #1 is DISMISSED without prejudice. SEE ORDER. Copy sent to Plaintiff via US Mail. Signed by Judge Richard L. Young on 3/31/2022.(JRB)
|
| Filing 3 MAGISTRATE JUDGE's NOTICE of Availability to Exercise Jurisdiction issued. (JSR) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, filed by Plaintiff RONALD T. WOOTEN. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(JSR) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against KENTON HUGHES, PEACE OF MIND PEST CONTROL, filed by RONALD T. WOOTEN. (No fee paid with this filing) (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons, #2 Envelope)(JSR) |
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
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.
