Armstrong v. Wilson County
| Arthur O. Armstrong |
| Magistrate's Offices, Calvin Woodard, Wilson County, Keith Stone, Jim Coe, Nash County and John Doe |
| 5:2019cv00330 |
| August 1, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
| Terrence W Boyle |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1985 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on August 16, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 JUDGMENT - IT IS ORDERED, ADJUDGED AND DECREED plaintiff's complaint is DISMISSED and plaintiff is SANCTIONED in the amount of $1,200.00.This case is closed. Signed by deputy clerk Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 8/16/2019. Copy sent via US Mail to Arthur O. Armstrong 8113 Pleasant Hill Road, Elm City, NC 27822. (Stouch, L.) |
Filing 4
ORDER dismissing #1 Complaint. Plaintiff is sanctioned in the amount of $1,200.00. Signed by Chief Judge Terrence W. Boyle on 8/13/2019. Copy sent via US Mail to Arthur O. Armstrong 8113 Pleasant Hill Road, Elm City, NC 27822. (Stouch, L.)
|
| Filing 3 Financial Disclosure Statement filed by Arthur O. Armstrong. (Rudd, D.) |
| Filing 2 Notice of Self-Representation filed by Arthur O. Armstrong. (Rudd, D.) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against All Defendants (Filing fee $ 400.00 receipt number RAL073240), filed by Arthur O. Armstrong. (Attachments: #1 Attachment to Complaint, #2 Civil Cover Sheet, #3 Proposed Summons, #4 Proposed Summons, #5 Proposed Summons) (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.
