Ross v. United States et al
| Charles Michael Ross |
| Christopher Steger, Charles Atchley and United States |
| 1:2024cv00213 |
| June 28, 2024 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee |
| Charles E Atchley |
| Christopher H Steger |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 26, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 10
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re #2 Complaint filed by Charles Michael Ross. It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's lawsuit be DISMISSED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher H Steger on 8/26/2024. (DCB)Mailed to Charles Michael Ross 8407 Oak View Drive Chattanooga, TN 37421.
|
|
Filing 9
ORDER granting #1 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher H Steger on 8/26/2024. (DCB)Mailed to Charles Michael Ross 8407 Oak View Drive Chattanooga, TN 37421.
|
|
Filing 8
ORDER re #1 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Charles Michael Ross. Plaintiff's pending motion to proceed in forma pauperis #1 is HELD IN ABEYANCE until required screenings have been completed. Plaintiff is NOTIFIED that the Court will not consider any amendments and/or supplements to the complaint. Any motions to proceed in forma pauperis pending in future cases filed by Plaintiff in this Court shall be managed in the same manner as in this case. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher H Steger on 7/9/2024. (DCB) Mailed to Charles Michael Ross 8407 Oak View Drive Chattanooga, TN 37421.
|
|
Filing 7
Notice Regarding Requirement to Notify Court of Change of Address (DCB)Mailed to Charles Michael Ross 8407 Oak View Drive Chattanooga, TN 37421.
|
|
Filing 6
Order Governing Sealing Confidential Information. Signed by District Judge Charles E Atchley, Jr on 7/2/2024. (DCB) Mailed to Charles Michael Ross 8407 Oak View Drive Chattanooga, TN 37421.
|
|
Filing 5
Order Governing Motions To Dismiss. Signed by District Judge Charles E Atchley, Jr on 7/2/2024. (DCB) Mailed to Charles Michael Ross 8407 Oak View Drive Chattanooga, TN 37421.
|
|
Filing 4
Order Governing Depositions. Signed by District Judge Charles E Atchley, Jr on 7/2/2024. (DCB) Mailed to Charles Michael Ross 8407 Oak View Drive Chattanooga, TN 37421.
|
|
District Judge Charles E Atchley, Jr and Magistrate Judge Christopher H Steger added. (DCB)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER RELATING CASES. Pursuant to Local Rule 3.2(d)(3), the undersigned finds that the above-captioned case is related to Case Nos. 1:24-cv-190, 1:24-cv-191, 1:24-cv-196, 1:24-cv-207, and 1:24-cv-208. The Court finds that these cases arise out of the same transaction or occurrence and involve one or more of the same parties. Therefore, these cases are related. See E.D. Tenn. L.R. 3.2(d)(3)(A)(1). Because the first of these cases was assigned to District Judge Charles Atchley and Magistrate Judge Christopher Steger, this case will also be assigned to those same judges. However, consolidation is not ordered. This entry is the complete order of the Court. Signed by Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger on 7/1/2024. (Steger, Christopher) Modified on 7/2/2024 (DCB). Mailed to Charles Michael Ross 8407 Oak View Drive Chattanooga, TN 37421.
|
|
Filing 2
COMPLAINT against All Defendants, filed by Charles Michael Ross.(DCB)
|
|
Filing 1
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Charles Michael Ross. (DCB)
|
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 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.
