FAROOK v. DAVIS
Plaintiff: DONALD MILLER and KHALIL A. FAROOK
Defendant: JAMES AUSTIN DAVIS, SR.
Case Number: 1:2025cv00036
Filed: January 14, 2025
Court: U.S. District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Presiding Judge: THOMAS D SCHROEDER
Referring Judge: JOE L WEBSTER
Nature of Suit: Prisoner: Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights
Jury Demanded By: None
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on February 19, 2025. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
February 19, 2025 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)
February 18, 2025 CASE REFERRED to JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER RE: #3 RECOMMENDED RULING by MAGISTRATE JUDGE re #2 Complaint filed by KHALIL A. FAROOK. (ae)
January 23, 2025 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)
January 23, 2025 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 01/23/2025, that Plaintiff's request for counsel is denied and that in forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. The Clerk is instructed to send Plaintiff 1983 forms, instructions, an application to proceed in forma pauperis, and a copy of pertinent parts of Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 (i.e., Sections (a) & (d)). IT IS RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed sua sponte without prejudice to Plaintiff filing a new complaint, on the proper 1983 forms, which corrects the defects cited above. (lg)
January 23, 2025 Opinion or Order ORDER signed by MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER on 01/23/2025, that Plaintiff's request for counsel is denied and that in forma pauperis status is granted for the sole purpose of entering this Order and Recommendation. (lg)
January 16, 2025 Case Assigned to JUDGE THOMAS D. SCHROEDER and MAG/JUDGE JOE L. WEBSTER. (at)
January 16, 2025 CASE REFERRED for Screening (at)
January 14, 2025 Filing 2 COMPLAINT against JAMES AUSTIN DAVIS, SR, filed by KHALIL A. FAROOK.(at)
January 14, 2025 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 this case: FAROOK v. DAVIS
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: JAMES AUSTIN DAVIS, SR.
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 ]
Plaintiff: DONALD MILLER
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 ]
Plaintiff: KHALIL A. FAROOK
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?