Armstrong v. Cook
Petitioner: Mark Armstrong
Respondent: Doug Cook
Case Number: 1:2015cv00225
Filed: August 27, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office: Chattanooga Office
County: Bledsoe
Presiding Judge: Susan K Lee
Presiding Judge: Harry S Mattice
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
July 5, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 16 MEMORANDUM AND OPINION. Therefore, the Court will DENY issuance of a COA. 28 U.S.C. § 2253; Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Because this petition is untimely, respondents dispositive motion will be GRANTED and this petition will be DISMISSED. Signed by District Judge Harry S Mattice, Jr on 7/5/2017. (BDG, ) Order mailed to Armstrong.
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 Tennessee Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Armstrong v. Cook
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Mark Armstrong
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 ]
Respondent: Doug Cook
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?