Leggett v. Gallatin Police Department
| William Ray Leggett |
| Gallatin Police Department |
| 3:2021cv00924 |
| December 13, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Waverly D Crenshaw |
| Barbara D Holmes |
| Civil Rights: Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 23, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 15
RESPONSE in Opposition to #10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, filed by William Ray Leggett. (dt)
|
|
Filing 14
ORDER: The Gallatin Police Department has now filed a motion to dismiss the case (Docket Entry No. #12 ). The deadline for Plaintiff to file a response to the motion is March 4, 2022. Plaintiff's response shall not exceed twenty-five (25) pages. Defendant shall have fourteen (14) days after Plaintiff's response to file a reply, which shall not exceed five (5) pages. No sur-reply from Plaintiff is permitted. Plaintiff is advised that the failure to file a response may result in the motion to dismiss being granted. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 1/31/2022. (xc: Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
|
|
Filing 13
MEMORANDUM in Support of #12 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Gallatin Police Department . (Berexa, Kristin)
|
|
Filing 12
MOTION to Dismiss by Gallatin Police Department. (Berexa, Kristin)
|
|
Filing 11
ORDER: Motion for Extension of Time to Respond, DE #10 is GRANTED. Gallatin Police Department's answer due 1/28/2022. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 1/20/2022. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.) (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ln)
|
|
TN State Bar status verified as active for Kristin Ellis Berexa admitted to this court. (dt)
|
|
Filing 10
MOTION for Extension of Time to File Answer re #1 Complaint, by Gallatin Police Department. (Berexa, Kristin)
|
|
Filing 9
NOTICE of Appearance by Kristin Ellis Berexa on behalf of Gallatin Police Department (Berexa, Kristin)
|
|
Filing 8
SUMMONS returned executed as to Gallatin Police Department served on 1/18/2022. (dt)
|
|
Filing 7
Summons issued as to Gallatin Police Department. (Service copies returned to plaintiff by mail.) (dt)
|
|
Filing 6
NOTICE of Harassment and Mental Abuse, Physical Abuse filed by William Ray Leggett. (dt)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER: This pro se case has been referred to the Magistrate Judge for pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and the Local Rules of Court. By a separate order entered at the appropriate time, the Court will enter a scheduling order setting out deadlines for the progression of this case. As Plaintiff was previously advised in the Order entered December 17, 2021 (Docket Entry No. #4 ), he is again advised that he is responsible for effecting service of process on Defendant in accordance with Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and that he must also keep the Court informed of his mailing address. Signed by Magistrate Judge Barbara D. Holmes on 12/20/2021. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ln)
|
|
Filing 4
ORDER REFERRING CASE: Accordingly, this action is REFERRED to the Magistrate Judge to oversee service of process, enter a scheduling order for the management of the case, dispose or recommend disposition of any pretrial motions under 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1)(A) and (B), and conduct further proceedings, if necessary, under Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and the Local Rules of Court. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 12/17/2021. (xc:Pro se party by regular mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ln)
|
|
Filing 3
NOTICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 217 to parties re obligation of counsel to keep Court apprised of current contact information. (dt)
|
|
Filing 2
NOTICE/INFORMATION regarding Consent of the Parties to the Magistrate Judge. (dt)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT against Gallatin Police Department (Filing fee $402, Receipt number 34675064439), filed by William Ray Leggett. (Attachments: #1 Transcript One, #2 Transcript Two, #3 Transcript Three, #4 Transcript Four, #5 Transcript Five, #6 King James Holy Bible, #7 Receipt)(dt)
|
|
Notice mailed to pro se party regarding filing of new case (docket sheet & certificate of service form and Notice of Consent form included.). (dt)
|
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 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: Leggett v. Gallatin Police Department | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: William Ray Leggett | |
| 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: Gallatin Police Department | |
| Represented By: | Kristin Ellis Berexa |
| 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.
