Rask v. Mitchell
| Craig Howard Rask |
| Brenda Mitchell |
| 4:2022cv00380 |
| May 3, 2022 |
| U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas |
| Jeffrey L Cureton |
| Mark Pittman |
| Civil Rights: Americans with Disabilities - Other |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Civil Rights Act |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on June 21, 2022. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 14 Mail returned as undeliverable. #12 Order of Dismissal or Administrative Closure, #13 Judgment, received back from Craig Howard Rask as Return to Sender, Attempted Not Known, Unable to Forward. Person is Homeless. No address update from last filed document. The current document has not been re-mailed. (sre) |
Filing 13
FINAL JUDGMENT: This Final Judgment is issued pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. In accordance with the Order issued this same day (ECF No. #12 ): It is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this civil action is DISMISSED without prejudice. The Clerk shall transmit a true copy of this Final Judgment to the parties and the case shall be closed. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 6/7/2022) (sre)
|
|
Filing 12
ORDER OF DISMISSAL: On May 25, 2021, the Court issued an Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation. ECF No. #10 . In that Order, the Court denied Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis and ordered Plaintiff to pay the filing and administrative fees associated with bringing this case or the complaint would be subject to dismissal without further notice. Id. As of the date of this Order, Plaintiff has yet to comply with the Order. Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff's complaint should be, and is hereby, DISMISSED without prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 6/7/2022) (sre)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:12,13. Tue Jun 7 09:48:04 CDT 2022 (crt) |
| Filing 11 Mail returned as undeliverable. #10 received back from Craig Howard Rusk as Attempted- Not Known. No address update from last filed document. The current document has not been re-mailed. (mmw) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:10. Thu May 26 08:17:14 CDT 2022 (crt) |
|
Filing 10
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE: United States Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton made Findings, Conclusions, and a Recommendation ("FCR") in this case on May 5, 2022. ECF No. #6 . No objections were filed, and the Magistrate Judges FCR is ripe for review. The undersigned reviewed the FCR for plain error. Finding none, the undersigned District Judge believes that the Findings and Conclusions of the Magistrate Judge are correct. Therefore, the Court ADOPTS the reasoning in the Magistrate Judge's FCR. Accordingly, Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. #2 ) is hereby DENIED. Plaintiff is ORDERED to pay to the Clerk of the Court the filing and administrative fees of $402.00 no later than June 1, 2022, or the complaint will be subject to dismissal without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b). (Ordered by Judge Mark Pittman on 5/25/2022) (sre)
|
| Filing 9 Mail returned as undeliverable. #5 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party, #4 Pittman, received back from Craig Howard Rask as Return to Sender, Attempted-Not Known, Unable to Forward. No address update from last filed document. The current document has not been re-mailed. (sre) |
| Filing 8 Mail returned as undeliverable. #5 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party received back from Craig Rask as Return to Sender, Person not at this Address, Person is Homeless. No address update from last filed document. The current document has not been re-mailed. (sre) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:4,5. Fri May 13 10:55:32 CDT 2022 (crt) |
| Filing 7 Mail returned as undeliverable. #5 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party, #4 Pittman, received back from Craig Howard Rask as Insufficient Address. Address updated from last filed document, #3 . New address: 1659 Sandy Lane Fort Worth, TX 76112. The current document has been re-mailed. (sre) |
|
Filing 6
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND NOTICE AND ORDER: It is RECOMMENDED that Plaintiff's motion to proceed in forma pauperis [ECF No. #2 ] be DENIED by the district judge. It is further RECOMMENDED that the district judge inform Plaintiff that the complaint will be subject to dismissal without further notice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(b), unless Plaintiff pays to the clerk of Court the filing and administrative fees of $402.00 within seven (7) days after the district judge's order. It is ORDERED that Plaintiff is granted until May 19, 2022 to serve and file written objections to the United States Magistrate Judge's proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton on 5/5/2022) (bdb)
|
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:6. Thu May 5 10:50:19 CDT 2022 (crt) |
| Filing 5 Notice and Instruction to Pro Se Party. (sre) |
| Filing 4 New Case Notes: A filing fee has not been paid. CASREF case referral set (see Special Order 3). Magistrate Judge Cureton preliminarily assigned. No prior sanctions found. (For court use only - links to the #national and #circuit indexes.) File to: Appropriate Staff Attorney. Pursuant to Misc. Order 6, Plaintiff is provided the Notice of Right to Consent to Proceed Before A U.S. Magistrate Judge. Clerk to provide copy to plaintiff if not received electronically. Attorneys are further reminded that, if necessary, they must comply with Local Rule 83.10(a) within 14 days or risk the possible dismissal of this case without prejudice or without further notice. Motion(s) referred to Magistrate Judge Jeffrey L. Cureton. (sre) |
| Filing 3 CERTIFICATE OF INTERESTED PERSONS/DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Craig Howard Rask. (Clerk QC note: No affiliate entered in ECF). (sre) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis filed by Craig Howard Rask. (sre) |
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Brenda Mitchell filed by Craig Howard Rask. 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. (sre) |
| ***Clerk's Notice of delivery: (see NEF for details) Docket No:4,5. Tue May 3 15:43:38 CDT 2022 (crt) |
Access additional case information on PACER
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. 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: Rask v. Mitchell | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Plaintiff: Craig Howard Rask | |
| 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 | [ Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Brenda Mitchell | |
| 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 | [ 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.
