Singley v. Nichols et al
| Ferris Singley and Ferris Geiger Singley |
| John S. Nichols, S.C. Supreme Court Commission of Lawyer Conduct, Ashliegh R. Wilson, Kelly B. Arnold and Joseph P. Turner |
| 4:2022cv01173 |
| April 11, 2022 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Timothy M Cain |
| Thomas E Rogers |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights, State Filers |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 27, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 ***DOCUMENT MAILED: #11 Order Ruling on Report and Recommendation w/NEF, placed in U.S. Mail from Florence Clerks Office to Ferris Singley, #211565, Evans Correctional Institution, 610 SC-9, Bennettsville, SC, 29570 (dsto, ) |
Filing 11
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court ADOPTS the Report (ECF No. #6 ) and incorporates it herein, and DENIES Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. #2 ). Plaintiff shall have fourteen (14) days from the date of this Order to pay the full filing fee of $402. If Plaintiff fails to pay the filing fee within the allotted time, this action will be subject to dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b) for failure to prosecute and to comply with court orders. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Timothy M Cain on 06/07/2022. (dsto, )
|
| Filing 7 ***DOCUMENT MAILED: #6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION w/NEF placed in U.S. Mail from Florence Clerks Office to Ferris Singley, #211565, Evans Correctional Institution, 610 SC-9, Bennettsville, SC, 29570 (dsto, ) |
|
Filing 6
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending that Plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. #2 ) be denied. To proceed with this Complaint, Plaintiff must pay the full filing fee (currently $350) plus the $52 administrative fee for a total fee due of $402. It is further recommended that the Court give Plaintiff fourteen (14) days from the date the United States District Judge rules on this Report and Recommendation (or a specific date determined by the United States District Judge) to pay the full $402 filing fee, in which event this matter can be returned to the undersigned magistrate judge to conduct a review of Plaintiff's complaint. However, if Plaintiff fails to pay the full $402 filing fee within the time period set by the United States District Judge, or seek an extension of time to do so, it is further recommended that, by a self-executing Order or by additional Order of this District Court, the complaint be dismissed without prejudice and without issuance of service of process. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 04/28/2022. (dsto, )
|
| Filing 3 TRUE DIVISION FOR TRIAL: Columbia. (dsto, ) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis (Restricted Access) by Ferris Singley. Response to Motion due by 4/25/2022. 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 Financial Certificate, #2 Envelope)No proposed order.Motions referred to Thomas E Rogers, III.(dsto, ) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Kelly B. Arnold, John S. Nichols, S.C. Supreme Court Commission of Lawyer Conduct, Joseph P. Turner, Ashliegh R. Wilson, filed by Ferris Singley. Service due by 7/11/2022. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(dsto, ) |
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.
