Swift v. Thomas
| Charles Swift |
| Wadie Thomas |
| 4:2015cv03016 |
| February 19, 2015 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| 4 Lincoln Office |
| Laurie Smith Camp |
| Pro Se Docket |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| 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
8
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER- This matter is dismissed without prejudice becuase Plaintiff failed to prosecute it diligently and failed to comply with this Court's orders. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (MKR)
|
|
Filing
7
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - Swift will have 30 days to file an amended complaint that clearly states a claim upon which relief may be granted against Judge Thomas in accordance with this order. If Swift fails to file an amended complaint, his claims ag ainst him will be dismissed without further notice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this case using the following text: August 3, 2015: check for amended complaint. The Court reserves the right to conduct further review of Swifts claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) after he addresses the matters set forth in this order. ***Pro Se Case Management Deadlines: ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 8/3/2015:check for amended complaint) Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)
|
|
Filing
6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER that leave to proceed in forma pauperis is provisionally granted, and the Complaint shall be filed without payment of fees. Plaintiff is advised that the next step in his case will be for the Court to conduct an initial review of his claims to determine whether summary dismissal is appropriate under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2). The Court will conduct this initial review in its normal course of business. Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)
|
|
Filing
4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER -Plaintiff is directed to submit the $400.00 fees to the Clerks Office or submit a request to proceed in forma pauperis within 30 days. Failure to take either action will result in dismissal of this matter without further notice. The Clerk of the Court is directed to send to the plaintiff the Form AO240 (Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit). ( Pro Se Case Management Deadline set for 3/20/2015: Check for MIFP or payment) Ordered by Chief Judge Laurie Smith Camp. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(MKR)
|
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 Nebraska 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
| Search for this case: Swift v. Thomas | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Charles Swift | |
| 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: Wadie Thomas | |
| 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.
