Ausbie v. Brooks
| Clovia Mae Brooks Ausbie |
| Harold Brooks |
| 3:2023cv02189 |
| September 26, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| David L Horan |
| Brantley Starr |
| Civil Rights: Other Civil Rights |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Federal Question: Other Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 7, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:5, 6. Tue Nov 7 08:37:21 CST 2023 (crt)
|
|
Filing 6
JUDGMENT: This action came on for consideration by the Court, and the issues having been duly considered and a decision duly rendered, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this lawsuit is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 11/6/2023) (cea)
|
|
Filing 5
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE re: #4 Findings and Recommendations on Case re: #3 Complaint filed by Clovia Mae Brooks Ausbie. (Ordered by Judge Brantley Starr on 11/6/2023) (cea)
|
|
Filing 4
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: The Court should dismiss this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge David L. Horan on 10/5/2023) (mcrd)
|
|
***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No: 4. Thu Oct 5 10:02:51 CDT 2023 (crt)
|
|
***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:1,2. Tue Oct 3 16:44:10 CDT 2023 (crt)
|
|
Filing 3
COMPLAINT against Harold Brooks filed by Clovia Mae Brooks Ausbie. Unless exempted, attorneys who are not admitted to practice in the Northern District of Texas must seek admission promptly. Forms, instructions, and exemption information may be found at www.txnd.uscourts.gov, or by clicking here: # Attorney Information - Bar Membership. If admission requirements are not satisfied within 21 days, the clerk will notify the presiding judge. (ndt)
|
|
Filing 2
Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (ndt)
|
|
Filing 1
New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. CASREF case referral set and case referred to Magistrate Judge Horan (see Special Order 3). Initiating documents received by mail. No prior sanctions found. (For court use only - links to the #national and #circuit indexes.) Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge (Judge Horan). Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. (ndt)
|
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 Northern 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: Ausbie v. Brooks | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Clovia Mae Brooks Ausbie | |
| 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: Harold Brooks | |
| 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.
