Ramey v. Rouse
| Matthew Charles Ramey |
| Shawn Rouse |
| 2:2020cv00215 |
| October 15, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee |
| Clifton L Corker |
| Cynthia R Wyrick |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 1, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
JUDGMENT ORDER, Plaintiff's pro se complaint for violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983 is DISMISSED pursuant to Rule 41(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Because the Court has CERTIFIED in the memorandum opinion that any appeal from this order would not be taken in good faith, should Plaintiff file a notice of appeal, he is DENIED leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by District Judge Clifton L. Corker on 12/1/20. (c/m)(ADA)
|
|
Filing 6
MEMORANDUM OPINION in support of the following Judgment Order. Signed by District Judge Clifton L. Corker on 12/1/20. (c/m Matthew Charles Ramey SULLIVAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER PO BOX 610 BLOUNTVILLE, TN 37617)(ADA)
|
|
Filing 5
MEMORANDUM & ORDER. It appears from the motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis that Plaintiff lacks sufficient financial resources to pay the filing fee. Accordingly, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1915, this motion #4 is GRANTED. Because Plaintiff is an inmate in the Sullivan County Detention Center, he is ASSESSED the civil filing fee of $350.00. The custodian of Plaintiff's inmate trust account is DIRECTED to submit payments as set forth. Plaintiff is ORDERED to complete the service packet and return it to the Clerks Office within twenty-one (21) days of receipt of this order. Signed by District Judge Clifton L. Corker on 10/21/20. (c/m Matthew Charles Ramey SULLIVAN COUNTY DETENTION CENTER PO BOX 610 BLOUNTVILLE, TN 37617 with service packet, custodian of inmate accounts, and Attorney General for the State of Tennessee)(ADA)
|
| Filing 4 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Matthew Charles Ramey. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (CAT) |
| Filing 3 Notice Regarding Requirement to Notify Court of Change of Address. (Copy of Notice mailed to Matthew Charles Ramey) (KDO) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE of Deficiency (IFP) - The Court is in receipt of your complaint. However, in order for this matter to proceed, you must either pay the required filing fee or submit an application to proceed in forma pauperis. (Copy of Notice mailed to Matthew Charles Ramey) (KDO) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Shawn Rouse (Filing fee $ 400.00- NOT PAID), filed by Matthew Charles Ramey. (Attachments: #1 Other - Envelope)(KDO) |
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
| Search for this case: Ramey v. Rouse | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Shawn Rouse | |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: Matthew Charles Ramey | |
| 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.
