Stuckey v. Whitaker et al
| Wish Stuckey |
| HAJOCA Corporation doing business as Hughes Supply also known as The Plumbing Warehouse also known as LCR-M, Michael Whitaker, The Plumbing Warehouse, LCR-M and John Does 1-10 |
| 3:2022cv00039 |
| January 28, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| F Keith Ball |
| Carlton W Reeves |
| Motor Vehicle |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 Personal Injury |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on February 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 AMENDED COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Wish Stuckey.(Creasey, Samuel) |
TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting #4 Motion to Reopen Case and File an Amended Complaint. No further written order shall issue. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 2-11-2022. (KLJ)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION to Reopen Case and Allow Filing of an Amended Complaint by Wish Stuckey (Attachments: #1 Exhibit Ex. A - Proposed Amended Complaint)(Creasey, Samuel) |
|
Filing 3
ORDER OF DISMISSAL. The case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge Carlton W. Reeves on 2/1/2022 (VM)
|
| Filing 2 Summons Issued as to HAJOCA Corporation, Michael Whitaker. (VM) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against HAJOCA Corporation, Michael Whitaker (Filing fee $402 receipt number 34643066088), filed by Wish Stuckey. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(VM) |
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 Mississippi Southern 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.
