Wallace v. Prince George County Detention Center et al
| Jonathan S. Wallace |
| Aramark Corporation, Corizon Health Services and Prince George County Detention Center |
| 1:2019cv02464 |
| August 22, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of Maryland |
| George Levi Russell |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 24, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER denying #4 Motion to Appoint Counsel ; granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; Granting Plaintiff Twenty-Eight Days from the Date of This Order to Supplement the Complaint as Directed; Directing the Clerk to Otherwise Withhold Service as to Defendants. Signed by Judge George Levi Russell, III on 10/16/2019. (c/m 10/16/2019) (ds3, Deputy Clerk)
|
| Filing 5 Prisoner Trust Fund Account Statement by Jonathan S. Wallace(ds3, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 4 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Jonathan S. Wallace(ds3, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 3 Supplemental to #1 Complaint filed by Jonathan S. Wallace (ds3, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Jonathan S. Wallace(ds3, Deputy Clerk) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Aramark Corporation, Corizon Health Services, Prince George County Detention Center, filed by Jonathan S. Wallace. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(ds3, Deputy Clerk) |
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 Maryland 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.
