Roberson v. USA et al
| Jasmyne Roberson |
| USA and U S Dept of Army |
| 2:2024cv00210 |
| February 14, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Louisiana |
| James D Cain |
| Thomas P LeBlanc |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2674 Federal Tort Claims Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 12, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 3 ANSWER to #1 Complaint,, by USA.(Attorney Karen J King added to party USA(pty:dft))(aty,King, Karen) |
| Filing 2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to U S Attorney, U S Attorney General, U S Dept of Army. (crt,Crick, S) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against The United States of America (Filing fee $405, receipt number ALAWDC-5855807) filed by Jasmyne Roberson. (Attachments: #1 Civil cover sheet, #2 Proposed summons/writ To the United States Attorney for the Western District of Louisiana, #3 Proposed summons/writ To the United States Attorney General, #4 Proposed summons/writ To the Office of the Secretary of the Army, #5 Proposed summons/writ To the Department of Defense, #6 Exhibit A - Administrative Claim, #7 Exhibit B - Acknowledgment letter)(Attorney Matthew Donald Hemmer added to party Jasmyne Roberson(pty:pla))(aty,Hemmer, Matthew) (Attachment 1 replaced on 2/14/2024) (Crick, S). |
| CASE Assigned to Judge James D Cain, Jr and Magistrate Judge Thomas P LeBlanc. (crt,Crick, S) |
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 Louisiana Western 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.
