Vogel v. Roy
Petitioner: James Mark Vogel
Respondent: Thomas Roy
Case Number: 0:2011cv01421
Filed: June 1, 2011
Court: US District Court for the District of Minnesota
Office: DMN Office
County: Aitkin
Presiding Judge: Jeanne J. Graham
Presiding Judge: Patrick J. Schiltz
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
June 30, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER ADOPTING 3 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION : 1. Petitioner's application to proceed in forma pauperis, [Docket No. 2], is DENIED; and 2. This action is summarily DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Written Opinion). Signed by Judge Patrick J. Schiltz on 6/30/11. (LPH)
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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Vogel v. Roy
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: James Mark Vogel
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Thomas Roy
Represented By: Matthew Frank
Represented By: Kimberly R Parker
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 [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | 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?