Cornell v. Myrtle Hill Company Dentistry
Plaintiff: Michael Cornell
Defendant: Myrtle Hill Company Dentistry
Case Number: 4:2012cv01523
Filed: August 23, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Office: St. Louis Office
County: Iron
Presiding Judge: Audrey G. Fleissig
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
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
August 29, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 4 MEMORANDUM & ORDER: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. 2] is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction. An Order of Dismissal will be filed with this Memorandum and Order. Signed by District Judge Audrey G. Fleissig on 8/29/2012. (KSM)
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 Missouri Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Cornell v. Myrtle Hill Company Dentistry
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Myrtle Hill Company Dentistry
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 ]
Plaintiff: Michael Cornell
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?