Lane v. Adams
Plaintiff: Richard Lane
Defendant: Bruce Lee Adams, Jr.
Case Number: 5:2016cv00107
Filed: March 10, 2016
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina
Office: Western Division Office
County: WAKE
Presiding Judge: James C. Dever
Nature of Suit: Copyrights
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
April 3, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 16 JUDGMENT: IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that plaintiffs failed to comply with this court's order of March 8, 2017 [D.E. 14]. In light of plaintiffs' failure to comply, the action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 4/3/2017. (Briggeman, N.)
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.

Access this case on the North Carolina Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lane v. Adams
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Richard Lane
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: Bruce Lee Adams, Jr.
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.


Why Is My Information Online?