Coston v. Ayscue et al
Mollie M. Coston |
Donald C. Ayscue, Hood Ellis, Attorney at Law and Mark Pruden |
2:2023cv00011 |
February 16, 2023 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
Terrence W Boyle |
James C Dever |
Robert T Numbers |
Real Property: Other |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on May 23, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
|
Filing 9 Proposed Summons filed by Mollie M. Coston. (Mann, Stephanie) |
Filing 8 CORRECTED Notice of Self-Representation (signed) filed by Mollie M. Coston. (Mann, Stephanie) |
Filing 7 CORRECTED Financial Disclosure Statement (signed) filed by Mollie M. Coston. (Mann, Stephanie) |
Filing 6 CORRECTED COMPLAINT (signed) against Donald C. Ayscue, Hood Ellis, Attorney at Law, Mark Pruden filed by Mollie M. Coston. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter, #2 Envelope) (Mann, Stephanie) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/21/2023: #3 Blank Civil Cover Sheet Mailed to Court) (Mann, Stephanie). |
|
|
Filing 3 Financial Disclosure Statement filed by Mollie M. Coston (Unsigned). (Rudd, D.) |
Filing 2 Notice of Self-Representation filed by Mollie M. Coston (Unsigned). (Rudd, D.) |
Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Donald C. Ayscue, Hood Ellis, Mark Pruden (No Filing Fee Paid.), filed by Mollie M. Coston. *(Complaint is unsigned). (Attachments: #1 Cover letter, #2 Exhibit Letters from the North Carolina Board of Examiners for Engineers and Surveyors and copies of receipts, #3 Proposed Summons) (Rudd, D.) |
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.
- 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.