Armstrong v. Stephens et al
| Arthur O. Armstrong |
| Colon Willoughby and Donald W. Stephens |
| 5:2012cv00809 |
| December 17, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Western Division Office |
| WILSON |
| James C. Fox |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question: Civil Rights Violation |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
11
JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that the Court Accepts the Memorandum and Recommendation, thereby DISMISSING the complaint and denying Motion for Leave to File; adopting Report and Recommendations regarding Memorandum and Recommendatio ns; denying Motion for Leave to File; denying Motion for Leave to File; denying Motion for Leave to File, all as moot. The plaintiff shall pay sanctions in the amount of $350.00 in each case, for a total of $1,400.00. The Plaintiff shall show cause why the attached superseding injunction should not be entered. Show cause response due within twenty-one (21) days of this order. Until the sanctions provided for in this order are paid in full, Armstrong may not file any additional actio ns in this court, nor may he file additional documents in the other captioned actions as listed in this order, other than his response to the order to show cause. Signed by Julie A. Richards, Clerk of Court on 2/28/2013. Copy sent to plaintiff via certified US mail receipt requested. (Edwards, S.)
|
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.
