Doe v. Citadel, The et al
| John Doe |
| Citadel, The, Glenn M Walters, Valerie Mercado and Janet Shealy |
| 2:2021cv04198 |
| December 30, 2021 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| David C Norton |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 18, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
WAIVER OF SERVICE by John Doe. All Defendants. (Schmutz, Joseph)
|
|
Filing 6
Summons Issued as to Citadel, The, Valerie Mercado, Janet Shealy, Glenn M Walters. (hcor, )
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER granting #4 Motion to Appear Pro Hac Vice. Signed by Honorable David C Norton on 01/05/2022.(hcor, )
|
|
Filing 4
MOTION to Appear Pro Hac Vice by Philip A. Byler ( Filing fee $ 350 receipt number ASCDC-10261895) by John Doe. Response to Motion due by 1/18/2022. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Affidavit PHV, #2 Supporting Documents Certificate of Good Standing)No proposed order.(Schmutz, Joseph)
|
|
Filing 2
Local Rule 26.01 Answers to Interrogatories by John Doe.(hcor, )
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Citadel, The, Valerie Mercado, Janet Shealy, Glenn M Walters ( Filing fee $ 402 receipt number ASCDC-10256699.), filed by John Doe. Service due by 3/30/2022(hcor, )
|
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 South Carolina 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.
