Chapman v. Dixon
Plaintiff: Robert Chapman
Defendant: Reed Dixon
Case Number: 3:2017cv00452
Filed: October 18, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office: Knoxville Office
County: Monroe
Presiding Judge: H Bruce Guyton
Presiding Judge: Travis R McDonough
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
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
November 14, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER accepting and adopting 3 Report and Recommendations. This case will be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for jurisdictional deficiencies. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. Signed by District Judge Travis R McDonough on 11/14/2017. (AML, ) Copy of Order mailed to Robert Chapman
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: Chapman v. Dixon
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Robert Chapman
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 ]
Defendant: Reed Dixon
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?