Mattingley v. Spaulding
Plaintiff: Robert Scott Mattingley
Defendant: Stephen Spaulding
Case Number: 1:2019cv11990
Filed: September 20, 2019
Court: US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Presiding Judge: Leo T Sorokin
Nature of Suit: Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on September 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
September 20, 2019 Filing 2 ELECTRONIC NOTICE of Case Assignment. District Judge Leo T. Sorokin assigned to case. If the trial Judge issues an Order of Reference of any matter in this case to a Magistrate Judge, the matter will be transmitted to Magistrate Judge David H. Hennessy. (Finn, Mary)
September 19, 2019 Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Stephen Spaulding, filed by Robert Scott Mattingley.(Castilla, Francis)

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 Massachusetts District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mattingley v. Spaulding
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Stephen Spaulding
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robert Scott Mattingley
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 [ 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.


Why Is My Information Online?