Barnes v. Foss et al DO NOT DOCKET IN THIS CASE. SEE 5:22-CV-210-M.
| Walter Barnes |
| James Brandon Foss, Christopher R. Gustafson, Matthew Sellers, Kyle James Sleppy and Tanner Brian Smith |
| 4:2022cv00050 |
| May 24, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Richard E Myers |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 26, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 2
Order Redesignating Division to Western Division. The Honorable Richard E. Myers II Chief United States District Judge, will remain the presiding judge. All future documents should reflect the new case number of 5:22-CV-210-M. No further filing shall be made in 4:22-CV-50-M. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 5/26/2022. (Waddell, K.)
|
| Intradistrict Transfer to Western Division. New Case No.: 5:22-cv-210-M. (Waddell, K.) |
| Notice to Counsel. This case should have been filed in the Western division. The Clerk will enter a reassignment order correcting the error. (Waddell, K.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0417-6572854.), filed by Walter Barnes. (Attachments: #1 Proposed Summons Defendant Foss, #2 Proposed Summons Defendant Gustafson, #3 Proposed Summons Defendant Sellers, #4 Proposed Summons Defendant Sleppy, #5 Proposed Summons Defendant Smith) (Cherry-Lassiter, L. Chantel) |
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.
