Hartwick v. Saul
| Ronald Wheeler Hartwick |
| Andrew Saul and Andrew M. Saul |
| 3:2019cv00360 |
| July 24, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Western District of North Carolina |
| Kenneth D Bell |
| Social Security: DIWC/DIWW |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 416 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 17, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 AFFIDAVIT of Service filed by Ronald Wheeler Hartwick. Andrew Saul served 8/13/2019; US Attorney General served 8/15/2019; US Attorney served on 8/13/2019, answer due 10/15/2019 (Metaxatos, Evan) Modified text on 9/13/2019, NEF Regenerated (tmg). |
| Filing 4 Summons Issued Electronically as to Andrew Saul, US Attorney and US Attorney General. NOTICE: Counsel shall print the summons and serve with other case opening documents in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.4. (tmg) |
| Filing Fee Received: $ 400.00, receipt number CHD055337 (rys) |
Filing 3
ORDER denying without prejudice #2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge Kenneth D. Bell on 7/26/2019. (nvc)
|
| Set IFP Motion Deadlines: due by 7/27/2020. (nvc) |
| Filing 2 MOTION (Sealed - Participants) to Proceed in forma pauperis by Ronald Wheeler Hartwick. (Metaxatos, Evan) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Andrew Saul, filed by Ronald Wheeler Hartwick.(Metaxatos, Evan) |
| Case assigned to District Judge Kenneth D. Bell. This is your only notice - you will not receive a separate document.(brj) |
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.
