Selmon-Austin v. Wells Fargo Bank et al
| Courtney-Antroynese Selmon-Austin |
| Wells Fargo Bank and Wilson & Associates |
| 2:2021cv02724 |
| November 17, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Tennessee |
| Charmiane G Claxton |
| John T Fowlkes |
| Real Property: Foreclosure |
| 15 U.S.C. ยง 1692 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 12, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 10 MOTION to Dismiss by Wilson & Associates. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum Memorandum in Support of Motion to Dismiss)(Morrison, H.) |
| Filing 9 NOTICE of Appearance by Reid S. Manley on behalf of Wells Fargo Bank (Manley, Reid) |
| Filing 8 MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM by Wells Fargo Bank. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum in Support of Wells Fargo's Motion to Dismiss, #2 Exhibit 1 - Deed of Trust)(Morris, Samuel) |
| Filing 7 Summons Issued as to Wells Fargo Bank, Wilson & Associates. The filer was given two signed/sealed summons for each defendant for service. (Attachments: #1 summons)(jae) |
| Filing 6 NOTICE: Signed agreement to receive notice of electronic filing (NEF) by Courtney-Antroynese Selmon-Austin (csf) |
| Filing 5 NOTICE TO COMPLY WITH PLAN FOR ALTERNATE DISPUTE RESOLUTION (ADR): Pursuant to Section to 2.1 of the ADR Plan, all civil cases filed on or after Sept. 1, 2014, shall be referred automatically for ADR. For compliance requirements, refer to the ADR Plan at: http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/ADRPlan.pdf (csf) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF RIGHT TO CONSENT TO THE EXERCISE OF CIVIL JURISDICTION BY A MAGISTRATE JUDGE Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 636(c), Fed.R.Civ.P.73, and Local Rule 72.1, this Court has designated the Magistrate Judges of this District to conduct trials and otherwise dispose of any civil case that is filed in this Court. Your decision to consent, or not consent, to the referral of your case to a United States Magistrate Judge for trial and entry of a final judgment must be entirely voluntary. The judge or magistrate judge to whom the case has been assigned will not be informed of your decision unless all parties agree that the case may be referred to a magistrate judge for these specific purposes. A less than unanimous decision will not be communicated by this office to either the judge or magistrate judge. The consent form is available on the courts website at https://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/forms-and-applications.php (csf) |
| Filing 3 NOTICE OF CASE TRACKING ASSIGNMENT PURSUANT TO LOCAL RULE 16.2: Pursuant to Local Rule 16.2, this case has been assigned to the Standard track. http://www.tnwd.uscourts.gov/pdf/content/LocalRules.pdf (csf) |
| Filing 2 Case initiation fee: PAID $ 402.00, receipt number M46760501690 (csf) |
| Filing 1 PRO SE COMPLAINT (Petition for Permanent Injunction and Other Relief against All Defendants, filed by Courtney-Antroynese Selmon-Austin. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Judicial Cards)(csf) |
| Pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-05, this case has been assigned to the United States magistrate judge for management of all pretrial matters. Pursuant to Local Rule 4.1(b)(1), the plaintiff shall present the Clerk with a properly completed summons for each defendant, and the Clerk shall issue the summons(es) to the plaintiff for service on the defendant(s).(csf) |
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 Western 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.
