GRDANOVIC v. LA ROCHE COLLEGE et al
| MEHO GRDANOVIC |
| US GOVERNMENT, BOSNIAN GOVERNMENT, UNITED NATIONS, LA ROCHE COLLEGE and TERRENCE F. MCVERRY |
| 2:2012cv00742 |
| June 4, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Allegheny |
| Maureen P. Kelly |
| Other Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 2000 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
6
ORDER indicating that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 4 is adopted as the opinion of this Court; that the Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis is denied as moot and, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. §1915( e)(2), that Plaintiff's Complaint is dismissed with prejudice and the case shall be docketed closed; that the Clerk of this Court shall contact Plaintiff at each of the addresses indicated on the docket and by telephone and inform him that the original exhibits filed with the Complaint may be picked up at the Clerks Office located on the Third Floor of the United States Courthouse, 700 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, PA; that, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if the Plaintiff desires to appeal from this Order he must do so within thirty (30) days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 3, Fed. R. App. P. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 8/21/12. (jg)
|
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 Pennsylvania Western 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.
