Meadows v. Douglass
3:2020cv00355 |
May 11, 2020 |
US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
Nashville Office |
Civil Rights: Accommodations |
42 U.S.C. ยง 3601 Fair Housing Act |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 4 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: Defendant Frederick Douglass, II, a pro se Tennessee resident, filed a "Notice of Removal of Action Under Diversity Jurisdiction." (Doc. No. 1 ). He also filed an application to proceed in this Court without p repaying fees and costs. (Doc. No. 2 ). The Court concludes that Defendant has failed to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the claims in this case. Accordingly, Defendant's "Notice of Removal of Action Under Di versity Jurisdiction" (Doc. No. 1 ) is DISMISSED, and his application to proceed in this Court without prepaying fees and costs (Doc. No. 2 ) is DENIED AS MOOT. This action is REMANDED to the Davidson County General Sessions Court. Signed by District Judge Eli J. Richardson on 5/11/2020. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail. ) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(vh) |
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
Search for this case: Meadows v. Douglass | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.