Howell v. United States of America
| Burl Anderson Howell |
| United States of America |
| 5:2014cv00898 |
| January 21, 2015 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Western Division Office |
| WAYNE |
| James C. Fox |
| Other Personal Injury |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1402 |
| None |
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
93
ORDER denying as moot 84 Motion for a Just, Speedy and Inexpensive Decision on Motion(s) to Alter or Amend Judgment. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 9/28/2016. Sent to Burl Anderson Howell, 207 Dobbs Drive, La Grange, NC 28551 via US Mail on 9/28/2016. (Grady, B.)
|
|
Filing
80
ORDER denying 61 Motion for Leave and MOTION to Alter or Amend, denying 70 Motion for Leave to Amend, denying 71 Motion to Reopen Case and MOTION for Joinder, denying 74 Motion for Leave and MOTION for Hearing, denying 76 Motion to Renew and Amend and denying 79 Motion to Renew and Amend. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 2/29/2016. Copy sent via US Mail to Burl Anderson Howell, 207 Dobbs Drive, La Grange, NC 28551 on 2/29/2016. (Grady, B.)
|
|
Filing
60
JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Defendants Motion to Dismiss [DE-38] is ALLOWED. Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment for Failure of Government to Reply to Responses in Support of Request for Entry of Judgment on Pleading or File Answer [DE-31], Motion for Leave to Seek Amendment of Courts Orders [DE-32], Motion to Strike New or Belated Defenses and Reiteration of Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment [DE-33], Motion to Amend Response in Opposition [DE-42], M otion to Amend Motion to Strike [DE-43], Motion to Amend Response in Opposition to Motion [DE-45], Motion to Amend Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment and Response in Opposition to Motion [DE-46], Motion for Judgment [DE-52], Motion for Prompt Disposition of a Rule 59(e)/60(b)(5) Motion [DE-55] and and Motion for Leave and the Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law Rule 50(b)(3) Alternatively Rule 60(b)(5) [DE-56] are DISMISSED as moot. Signed by Deputy Clerk Jacqueline B. Grady on behalf of Julie Richards Johnston, Clerk of Court, on 11/24/2015. Copy mailed to Burl Anderson Howell, 207 Dobbs Drive, La Grange, NC 28551 via US Mail on 11/24/2015. (Grady, B.)
|
|
Filing
28
ORDER denying without prejudice to renew 12 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction, denying 16 Motion for Leave to File Motion for Summary Judgment and denying 26 Motion for Sanctions. Signed by Senior Judge James C. Fox on 5/29/2015. Order sent to Burl Anderson Howell, 207 Dobbs Drive, La Grange, NC 28551 via US Mail on 5/29/2015. (Grady, B.)
|
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
| Search for this case: Howell v. United States of America | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Burl Anderson Howell | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: United States of America | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
