Porterfield v. Dietze
| David Porterfield |
| John Brett Dietze |
| 5:2021cv00029 |
| March 5, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Texas |
| Caroline Craven |
| Robert W Schroeder |
| Personal Inj. Med. Malpractice |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1332 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on May 18, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER OF RECUSAL. District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III recused.. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 4/30/2021. (slo, )
|
| Filing 5 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT by David Porterfield on 4/29/2021 as to #4 Report and Recommendations. (slo, ) |
| Filing 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re #1 Complaint filed by David Porterfield. Signed by Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven on 4/23/2021. (slo, ) |
| Filing 3 ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF RECEIPT by David Porterfield on 3/22/2021 as to #2 Order to (1) pay the statutory $402.00 filing fee; or (2) complete the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (slo, ) |
|
Filing 2
ORDER that the Plaintiff shall have thirty days from the receipt of this Order to either: (1) pay the statutory $402.00 filing fee; or (2) complete the application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and return said application to the Court. (Copy of order and application form for leave to proceed informa pauperis mailed to Plaintiff at 10101 Fondron Road, Suite 353, Houston, TX 77096 via certified mail return receipt requested No. 7002 2410 0003 5613 7607.) Signed by Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven on 3/9/2021. (slo, )
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against John Brett Dietze filed by David Porterfield. (No filing fee or motion to proceed informa pauperis received) (Attachments: #1 Envelope(s))(slo, ) |
|
STANDING ORDER REFERRING PRO SE CASES to Magistrate Judge Caroline Craven for all pretrial matters. Signed by District Judge Robert W. Schroeder, III on 3/5/2021. (slo, )
|
| Sent Consent to Magistrate, Docket sheet and Prose guidelines, that include information regarding reporting change of address to court, to the Plaintiff per Magistrate Judge (slo, ) |
| In accordance with the provisions of 28 USC Section 636(c), you are hereby notified that a U.S. Magistrate Judge of this district court is available to conduct any or all proceedings in this case including a jury or non-jury trial and to order the entry of a final judgment. The form #Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge is available on our website. All signed consent forms, excluding pro se parties, should be filed electronically using the event Notice Regarding Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge. (slo, ) |
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 Texas Eastern 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: Porterfield v. Dietze | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: John Brett Dietze | |
| 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 ] |
| Plaintiff: David Porterfield | |
| 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.
