Hunter v. Buncombe County et al
Plaintiff: Christopher Hunter
Defendant: Jack Van Duncan, Buncombe County and Quentin Miller
Case Number: 1:2021cv00052
Filed: February 22, 2021
Court: US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina
Presiding Judge: W Carleton Metcalf
Referring Judge: Martin Reidinger
Nature of Suit: Civil Rights: Other
Cause of Action: 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983
Jury Demanded By: Both
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on March 10, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
April 6, 2021 NOTICE pursuant to Local Rule 16.1 you are required to conduct an Initial Attorney's Conference within 14 days. At the conference, the parties are required to discuss the issue of consent to jurisdiction of a magistrate judge in accordance with Local Rules 16.1(A) and 73.1(C). The #Certificate of Initial Attorneys Conference, and if applicable, the #Joint Stipulation of Consent to Exercise jurisdiction by a US Magistrate Judge, should be filed within 7 days of the conference. If appropriate, a party may file a Motion to Stay the Initial Attorney's Conference. CIAC Report due by 4/27/2021. (khm)
April 5, 2021 Filing 8 ANSWER to #6 Amended Complaint by Quentin Miller, Jack Van Duncan.(Flanagan, Patrick)
March 23, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 7 ORDER finding as moot Buncombe County's #3 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 3/23/2021. (maf)
March 23, 2021 Set Deadlines: Deadline for Jack Van Duncan to respond to the #6 Amended Complaint is 4/5/2021. (maf)
March 22, 2021 Filing 6 AMENDED COMPLAINT with Jury Demand against Jack Van Duncan, Quentin Miller, filed by Christopher Hunter.(Tew, Clark)
March 22, 2021 Filing 5 ANSWER to Complaint with Jury Demand by Jack Van Duncan.(Flanagan, Patrick)
March 16, 2021 Set/Reset Deadlines as to #3 MOTION to Dismiss:Per 3/16 Text Order, Responses due by 3/22/2021 (kby)
March 16, 2021 Opinion or Order TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting #4 Motion for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply Text of Order: ORDER: The Motion for Extension of Time to Respond to Defendant's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to Defendant Buncombe County's Motion to Dismiss is EXTENDED by seven (7) days, through and including March 22, 2021. So Ordered. Entered by Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 3/16/2021. (kkb)
March 15, 2021 Filing 4 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply re: #3 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Christopher Hunter. Responses due by 3/29/2021 (Tew, Clark). Motions referred to W. Carleton Metcalf.
March 1, 2021 Filing 3 MOTION to Dismiss for Failure to State a Claim , MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction by Buncombe County. Responses due by 3/15/2021 (Attachments: #1 Memorandum) (Euler, Curtis). Motions referred to W. Carleton Metcalf.
February 25, 2021 Filing 2 MOTION for Extension of Time to Answer re: #1 Notice of Removal, by Jack Van Duncan. (Flanagan, Patrick). Motions referred to W. Carleton Metcalf.
February 25, 2021 Opinion or Order TEXT-ONLY ORDER granting #2 Motion for Extension of Time to Answer. Jack Van Duncan answer due 3/22/2021. Text of Order: ORDER: Defendant Jack Van Duncan's Motion for Extension of Time to Answer Plaintiff's Complaint is GRANTED, and the deadline for Defendant Jack Van Duncan to answer or otherwise respond to Plaintiff's Complaint is EXTENDED through and including March 22, 2021. So Ordered. Entered by Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf on 2/25/2021. (kkb)
February 24, 2021 Set Deadlines: Buncombe County answer due 3/1/2021; Jack Van Duncan answer due 3/1/2021. (khm)
February 22, 2021 Filing 1 NOTICE OF REMOVAL with Jury Demand from Buncombe County Superior Court, case number 21 CVS 168. (Filing fee $ 402 receipt number 0419-4907419), filed by Jack Van Duncan. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B)(Flanagan, Patrick)
February 22, 2021 Case assigned to Chief Judge Martin Reidinger and Magistrate Judge W. Carleton Metcalf. Notice: You must click this link to retrieve the #Case Assignment Packet. This is your only notice - you will not receive a separate document.(rhf)

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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Hunter v. Buncombe County et al
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Jack Van Duncan
Represented By: Patrick Houghton Flanagan
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: Buncombe County
Represented By: Curtis William Euler
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: Quentin Miller
Represented By: Patrick Houghton Flanagan
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: Christopher Hunter
Represented By: Clark Daniel Tew
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?