Jamal v. City of Detroit Board of Zoning Appeals et al
Frank Jamal |
City of Detroit Board of Zoning Appeals, James Ribbron and Alternative Care Choices, LLC |
2:2018cv13283 |
October 20, 2018 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan |
David R. Grand |
Mark A Goldsmith |
Other Statutory Actions |
28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 |
Plaintiff |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on October 24, 2018. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 5 ORDER Regarding Certification Requirements. Signed by District Judge Mark A. Goldsmith. (Sandusky, K) |
Filing 4 SUMMONS Issued for *James Ribbron* (BGar) |
Filing 3 SUMMONS Issued for *City of Detroit Board of Zoning Appeals* (BGar) |
Filing 2 SUMMONS Issued for *Alternative Care Choices, LLC* (BGar) |
A United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at #http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (BGar) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT filed by Frank Jamal against All Defendants with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: 0645-6955651 - Fee: $ 400. County of 1st Plaintiff: Oakland - County Where Action Arose: Wayne - County of 1st Defendant: Wayne. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Paterson, Andrew) |
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 Michigan Eastern 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.