Hammock v. Barbera et al
| Terrence Edward Hammock |
| Chief Judge Mary Ellen Barbera, Judge Robert Cahill, Jr., Judge Kathleen Cox, State Attorney Scott D. Shellenberger, State Attorney Micheal Fuller and Director Gail Watts |
| 1:2021cv01753 |
| July 15, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of Maryland |
| Stephanie A Gallagher |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 pr |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 30, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER denying #5 Motion to Reopen Case. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 8/30/2021. (jb5, Deputy Clerk)(c/m-08/30/2021)
|
|
Filing 5
MOTION to Reopen Case by Terrence Edward Hammock (Attachments: #1 Exhibit, #2 Envelope)(kos, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER granting #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; dismissing the complaint. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 7/20/2021. (c/m 7/20/2021) (ko, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Stephanie A. Gallagher on 7/20/2021. (c/m 7/20/2021)(ko, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Terrence Edward Hammock(dm4, Deputy Clerk)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Mary Ellen Barbera, Robert Cahill, Jr, Kathleen Cox, Micheal Fuller, Scott D. Shellenberger, Gail Watts, filed by Terrence Edward Hammock.(dm4, 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.
