Ibrahim v. Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, P.A. et al
| Shemeka Ibrahim |
| Murfreesboro Medical Clinic Surgi Center PA, Sleep Medicine of Middle Tennessee, Kelly A. Carden, Sleep Study of Middle Tennessee, Andrew H. Ford and Murfreesboro Medical Clinic, P.A. |
| 3:2012cv01019 |
| October 3, 2012 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| Rutherford |
| Kevin H. Sharp |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 Diversity-Medical Malpractice |
| Plaintiff |
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
15
ORDER: The plaintiff has now filed a document styled "Motion/Complaint for an Appeal," in which the plaintiff appears to request permission to transfer her case to the "appeal court in Nashville, Tennessee" and to "grant [her ] appeal and allow [her] to forward this case to the State of Tennessee Appeals Court." Insofar as the plaintiff seeks transfer of her case to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, such motion is DENIED, because this Court has no power to transfer an appeal to the state appellate court. Because the plaintiff's motion may be construed as a notice of appeal, the Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to provide notice thereof to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. In accordance with Rule 24, the Court HER EBY CERTIFIES that an appeal of the dismissal of this case would not be taken in good faith. If the plaintiff seeks to pursue an appeal in the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals, she MUST either submit the full $455 appellate filing fee to the Clerk of this Court, or file a motion to proceed in forma pauperis directly in the Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, within 30 days of service of this order. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 11/27/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail. 6CCA via e-mail)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
11
ORDER: On the same day the Court entered an order dismissing the complaint for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction 4 , plaintiff Shemeka Ibrahim filed a First Amended Complaint 7 , apparently to correct grammatical errors in the original complaint. To the extent the amended complaint might be construed as a motion for permission to amend the complaint or as a motion to reconsider dismissal of the case, such motion, however construed, is without merit and is hereby DENIED AS MOOT. The proposed amendment does not affect the fundamental defect in the original complaint, as it too fails to state a claim over which this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/22/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER: The Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis 2 is Granted and the Clerk is Directed to file the plaintiff's complaint in forma pauperis. The Court concludes that the plaintiff's complaint is subject to dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to the plaintiff's ability to pursue her claims in state court. The Motion for Extension of Time 3 is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by District Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 10/16/12. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
|
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 Middle 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.
