Davidson v. Stringer et al
Plaintiff: Dean Bryan Davidson
Defendant: Mark Stringer, Denise Hacker and State of Missouri
Case Number: 4:2022cv00897
Filed: August 26, 2022
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Missouri
Presiding Judge: John M Bodenhausen
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on December 5, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
December 5, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 10 Letter from plaintiff Dean Davidson re: IFP status in other cases (ANP)
November 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 9 Letter from plaintiff Dean Davidson re: IFP status in another case (ANP)
September 23, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 8 OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER. IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of his complaint [ECF No. #7 ] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal of this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 9/23/22. (EAB)
September 23, 2022 Opinion or Order ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Docket No: 8. copy sent to non-electronic party on this date. Fri Sep 23 12:12:49 CDT 2022 (Brown, Erica)
September 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 7 Letter to The Clerk of Court from Dean Davidson re:To address some corrections (Attachments: #1 Attachment MJ Consent) (KRZ)
September 21, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 6 Certified Inmate Account Statement by Plaintiff Dean Bryan Davidson. (JEB)
August 31, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 5 ORDER OF DISMISSAL pursuant to 28USC1915(e)(2)(B) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent plaintiff's lawsuit contains state law claims, those claims are dismissed, without prejudice, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). IT IS HEREBY CERTIFIED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/31/2022. (HMA)
August 31, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 4 OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that plaintiff's request for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e)(2)(B). A separate order of dismissal will be entered herewith. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that plaintiff's motion for appointment of counsel [ECF No. #2 ] is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that to the extent plaintiff's complaint contains state law claims, the Court declines to exercise jurisdiction over those claims. See 28 U.S.C. 1367(c). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that an appeal from this dismissal would not be taken in good faith. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 8/31/2022. (HMA)
August 31, 2022 Opinion or Order ORDER RECEIPT: (see receipt) Docket No: 4, 5. copy sent to non-electronic party on this date. Wed Aug 31 14:57:13 CDT 2022 (Aubuchon, Heather)
August 29, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Pursuant to Local Rule 2.08, the assigned/referred magistrate judge is designated and authorized by the court to exercise full authority in this assigned/referred action or matter under 28 U.S.C. Sec. 636 and 18 U.S.C Sec. 3401, including any case budgeting matters. (Potter, Jacob)
August 29, 2022 Opinion or Order Case Opening Notification. Judge Assigned: Honorable John M. Bodenhausen. All parties must file the Notice Regarding Magistrate Judge Jurisdiction Form consenting to or opting out of the Magistrate Judge jurisdiction. Click #here for the instructions. (JWD)
August 29, 2022 Opinion or Order ***Complaint Letter Created. This is to advise you that this office has received and filed your complaint and has assigned it the above-referenced case number. (JWD)
August 29, 2022 Opinion or Order ***Complaint Letter Processed (see notice of electronic filing for distribution list) Mon Aug 29 12:01:04 CDT 2022 (admin,)
August 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 2 MOTION to Appoint Counsel by Plaintiff Dean Bryan Davidson. (JWD)
August 26, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 1 COMPLAINT against defendant Denise Hacker, State of Missouri, Mark Stringer, Jury Demand, filed by Dean Bryan Davidson. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits - Medical Documents, #2 Envelope)(JWD)

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: Davidson v. Stringer et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Dean Bryan Davidson
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 ]
Defendant: Mark Stringer
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 ]
Defendant: Denise Hacker
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 ]
Defendant: State of Missouri
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?