FAROOK v. DAVIS
DONALD MILLER and KHALIL A. FAROOK |
JAMES AUSTIN DAVIS, SR. |
1:2025cv00036 |
January 14, 2025 |
U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina |
THOMAS D SCHROEDER |
JOE L WEBSTER |
Prisoner: Civil Rights |
42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
None |
Docket Report
This docket was last retrieved on February 19, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
Document Text |
---|
Filing 5 JUDGMENT signed by JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER on 02/19/2025, that the court has reviewed and hereby adopts the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that this action is dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint, on the proper 1983 forms, which corrects the defects cited in the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation. (cc) |
CASE REFERRED to JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER RE: #3 RECOMMENDED RULING by MAGISTRATE JUDGE re #2 Complaint filed by KHALIL A. FAROOK. (ae) |
Filing 4 Notice of Mailing Recommendation: Objections to R&R due by 2/6/2025. Objections to R&R for Pro Se due by 2/10/2025. (lg) |
![]() |
![]() |
Case Assigned to JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER and MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (at) |
CASE REFERRED for Screening (at) |
Filing 2 COMPLAINT against JAMES AUSTIN DAVIS, SR, filed by KHALIL A. FAROOK.(at) |
Filing 1 APPLICATION to Proceed IFP by KHALIL A. FAROOK. (Attachments: #1 Envelope - Front and Back)(at) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- 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.