Mao v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Service Office of the General Counsel et al
| Wei Mao |
| United States Citizenship and Immigration Service Office of the General Counsel, USCIS Attorney General of the USA and United States Attorney for the Eastern Disrict of New York |
| 1:2024cv00369 |
| January 18, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of New York |
| Peggy Kuo |
| Orelia E Merchant |
| Other Immigration Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1651 Petition for Writ of Mandamus |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 11, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
ORDER DISMISSING CASE: The parties' #7 stipulation of dismissal without prejudice is so ordered by Judge Orelia E. Merchant on 3/11/2024. (GM)
|
| Filing 7 STIPULATION of Dismissal Without Prejudice by USCIS Attorney General of the USA, United States Attorney for the Eastern Disrict of New York, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service Office of the General Counsel (Freismuth, Megan) |
| NOTICE to Assign District Judge: The Clerk of Court is directed to reassign this case to a district judge. (RO) |
| Case Assigned to Judge Orelia E. Merchant. Magistrate Judge Peggy Kuo no longer assigned as presider to the case. Please download and review the Individual Practices of the assigned Judges, located on our #website. Attorneys are responsible for providing courtesy copies to judges where their Individual Practices require such. (DA) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE of Appearance by Megan J. Freismuth on behalf of All Defendants (aty to be noticed) (Freismuth, Megan) |
| Filing 5 SUMMONS Returned Executed by Wei Mao. USCIS Attorney General of the USA served on 1/18/2024, answer due 3/18/2024; United States Attorney for the Eastern Disrict of New York served on 1/18/2024, answer due 3/18/2024; United States Citizenship and Immigration Service Office of the General Counsel served on 1/18/2024, answer due 3/18/2024. (SG) |
| Filing 4 Clerk's Notice Re: Consent. A United States Magistrate Judge has been assigned to this case and is available to conduct all proceedings. In accordance with Rule 73 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Local Rule 73.1, the parties are notified that if all parties consent, the assigned Magistrate Judge is available to conduct all proceedings in this action including a (jury or nonjury) trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. Attached to this Notice is a blank copy of the consent form that should be filled out, signed and filed electronically only if all parties wish to consent. Any party may withhold its consent without adverse substantive consequences. Do NOT return or file the consent unless all parties have signed the consent.The form may also be accessed at the following link: #https://img.nyed.uscourts.gov/files/forms/MJConsentForm.pdf (AF) |
| Filing 3 Summons Issued as to USCIS Attorney General of the USA, United States Attorney for the Eastern Disrict of New York, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service Office of the General Counsel, U.S. Attorney and U.S. Attorney General (AF) |
| Filing 2 FILING FEE: $ 405.00, receipt number 100012107 (AF) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against USCIS Attorney General of the USA, United States Attorney for the Eastern Disrict of New York, United States Citizenship and Immigration Service Office of the General Counsel, filed by Wei Mao. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (AF) |
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 New York Eastern 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.
