Ringland v. Rossiter
| Mark Ringland |
| Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. |
| 8:2023cv00076 |
| February 21, 2023 |
| US District Court for the District of Nebraska |
| Joseph F Bataillon |
| Pro Se Docket |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 17, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
JUDGMENT - The above captioned cases are dismissed without prejudice for the reasons discussed in the Memorandum and Order entered on this date. (Attachments: #1 Notice - Civil Appeals in Pro Se Cases) Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)
|
|
Filing 6
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff's request for dismissal of these actions, Filing No. #5 in Case No. 8:23cv76 and Filing No. #5 in Case No. 8:23cv77, is granted. Accordingly, both Case No. 8:23cv76 and Case No. 8:23cv77 are dismissed without prejudice. A separate judgment will be entered in each case in accordance with this Memorandum and Order. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION For Termination of cases civil action on behalf of Plaintiff Mark Ringland.(TCL) |
|
Filing 4
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that: Plaintiff is directed to submit the $402.00 fees to the Clerk's 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 Plaintiff the Form AO240 ("Application to Proceed Without Prepayment of Fees and Affidavit"). The Clerk of the Court is directed to set a pro se case management deadline in this matter with the following text: April 24, 2023: Check for MIFP or payment. Ordered by Senior Judge Joseph F. Bataillon. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)
|
|
Filing 3
GENERAL ORDER NO. 2022-04: This general order provides for the management and assignment of cases filed by a plaintiff or petitioner without counsel. This general order also includes the definition of the pro se docket, responsibilities of the pro se law clerks and scheduling and discovery requirements in pro se cases. Ordered by Chief Judge Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. (Copy mailed to pro se party)(TCL)
|
| Filing 2 NOTICE by Clerk acknowledging receipt of complaint filed by a pro se party. (TCL) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. No Summons issued, filed on behalf of plaintiff Mark Ringland. (TCL) |
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 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: Ringland v. Rossiter | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Mark Ringland | |
| 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: Robert F. Rossiter, Jr. | |
| 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.
