State of North Carolina, Martin County v. Everette
| State of North Carolina, Martin County |
| Everette Thomas, Jr. and Thomas Everette, Jr. |
| 4:2023cv00051 |
| March 24, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Terrence W Boyle |
| Robert T Numbers |
| Contract: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1441 Notice of Removal |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 6, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Motion Submitted to District Judge Terrence W. Boyle regarding #7 MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATIONS regarding #3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Thomas Everette, Jr. (Reznick, Debra) |
| Filing 8 OBJECTION to #7 Memorandum and Recommendations by Thomas Everette, Jr. (Stouch, L.) |
Filing 7
ORDER AND MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION: the court grants Everette's motion to proceed D.E.3). But because Everette has not demonstrated that removal is proper, the district court should remand his state criminal cases back to North Carolina Superior Court. Any party may file a written objection to the M&R within 14 days from the date the Clerk serves it on them.Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 4/11/2023. (Copy of Order and M&R mailed to Thomas Everette, Jr., P.O. Box 5, Bethel, NC 27812.) (McNally, Kimberly)
|
| Motion Referred to US Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II regarding #3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. (Stouch, L.) |
| Filing 6 Financial Disclosure Statement filed by Thomas Everette, Jr. (Stouch, L.) |
| Filing 5 Notice of Self-Representation filed by Thomas Everette, Jr. (Stouch, L.) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Thomas Everette, Jr. from Martin County Superior Court, case number No. 18-CRS-69 and 18-CRS-70. filed by Thomas Everette, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet) (Stouch, L.) |
| Filing 3 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Thomas Everette, Jr.. (Stouch, L.) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER - Plaintiff is DIRECTED to correct the deficiencies listed in the order and return the corrected documents within fourteen (14) days from the filing of this order. Failure to do so may result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to prosecute. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers, II on 3/30/2023. Copy sent via US Mail to Everette Thomas, Jr., Post Office Box 5, Bethel, NC 27812. (Stouch, L.)
|
| NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY regarding #1 Notice of Removal. A party who is proceeding without an attorney shall file a notice of self representation pursuant to Local Civil Rule 5.2(b). (Rudd, D.) |
| NOTICE OF DEFICIENCY - Failure to File Financial Disclosure Statement as to Everette Thomas, Jr. Pursuant to 7.1 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and Local Civil Rule 7.3, all parties shall file a financial disclosure statement. A negative statement is required if a party has no disclosures to make. The disclosure statement must be on a form provided by the clerk. This form is available at the clerk's office and on the court's website. (Rudd, D.) |
| Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL by Everette Thomas, Jr. from Martin County Superior Court, case number 18CRS70. (No Filing Fee Paid), filed by Everette Thomas, Jr. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A- Copy of Indictment from Martin County Superior Court (18CRS70), #2 Exhibit Document - Show of Cause Proof of Claim Demand, #3 Exhibit Document - Conditions Acceptance for the Value/Agreement/Contract No., #4 Exhibit Document - Conditional Acceptance for the Value/Agreement Contract No.) (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.
