Gamez et al v. University Eye Surgeons, et al
| Alejandro Gamez |
| University Eye Surgeons PC and Bradley L Pearman |
| 2:2010cv00013 |
| January 20, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee |
| Greeneville Office |
| Hamblen |
| J Ronnie Greer |
| Dennis H Inman |
| Prisoner Civil Rights (Prison Condition) |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| 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
12
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: Plaintiff has submitted an application to proceed in forma pauperis and an affidavit, which reflects that he lacks sufficient financial resources to pay the full filing fee of $350.00 at once. See 28 U.S.C . § 1914(a). Nonetheless, because plaintiff is a prisoner, he is ASSESSED the civil filing fee, to be paid on an installment basis. Directing Monthly Payments be made from Prison Account of Alejandro Gamez, a/k/a Rivas Cabral-Fern. The Clerk is DIRECTED to mail a copy of this Order to the custodian of inmate trust accounts at plaintiffs place of confinement to facilitate compliance with the assessment procedures outlined herein. Because plaintiff has failed to state a viable claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, this lawsuit will be dismissed by separate order. Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 7/1/2010. (c/m to pro se plaintiff and to custodian of inmate trust accounts) (RLC)
|
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.
