Latimer v. Minnesota, State of et al
| Mark Latimer |
| Minnesota, State of, Minn. Department of Corrections and Minn. Department of Human Services |
| 0:2009cv03108 |
| November 5, 2009 |
| US District Court for the District of Minnesota |
| DMN Office |
| Chisago |
| Keyes |
| Kyle |
| Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
7
ORDER ADOPTING 5 Report and Recommendation; OVERRULING 6 Objections; DENYING 3 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis; summarily DISMISSING this action and requiring Plaintiff to pay the unpaid balance of the Court filing fee; counting dismissal of this action as a "strike" against Plaintiff for purposes of 28 U.S.C. Section 1915(g). (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Richard H. Kyle on 03/08/10. (kll)
|
|
Filing
5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 1. Plaintiffs application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis, (Docket No. 2), be DENIED; 2. This action be summarily DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); 3. Plaintiff be required to pay the unpaid balance of the Court filing fee, namely the full $350, in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1915(b)(2); and 4. The dismissal of this action be counted as a "strike" against Plaintiff for purposes of 28 U.S.C. § 1915(g). Objections to R&R due by 12/22/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey J. Keyes on 12/8/109. (VEM)
|
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 Minnesota 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.
