Dorise v. Vazquez
Petitioner: Mikhael Charles Dorise
Respondent: N. Vazquez
Case Number: 2:2015cv00222
Filed: May 18, 2015
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Texas
Office: Corpus Christi Office
County: Live Oak
Presiding Judge: B. Janice Ellington
Presiding Judge: Nelva Gonzales Ramos
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
November 23, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER ADOPTING MEMORANDUM AND RECOMMENDATION TO DISMISS re: 17 Memorandum and Recommendations. The Petitioner's Section 2241 (DE 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of prosecution. (Signed by Judge Nelva Gonzales Ramos) Parties notified.(lcayce, 2)
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dorise v. Vazquez
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Mikhael Charles Dorise
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 ]
Respondent: N. Vazquez
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.


Why Is My Information Online?