McCurry v. Gannett Co., Inc. et al
| Jeff Tracy McCurry |
| Gannett Co., Inc., Doe 1, Doe 2, Doe 3, Doe 4, Doe 5, Doe 6, Doe 7, Doe 8, Doe 9 and Doe 10 |
| 1:2023cv01384 |
| October 11, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Claude M Hilton |
| Lindsey R Vaala |
| Copyright |
| 17 U.S.C. ยง 501 Copyright Infringement |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on December 4, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
So Ordered in re #4 Notice of Voluntary Dismissal with Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Signed by District Judge Claude M. Hilton on 12/4/2023. (Dest)
|
| Filing 4 NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal by Jeff Tracy McCurry (Faig, Alexander) |
| Initial Case Assignment to District Judge Claude M. Hilton and Magistrate Judge Lindsey R. Vaala. (nneb) |
| Filing 3 Motion to appear Pro Hac Vice by Matthew James Cave and Certification of Local Counsel Alexander P. Faig Filing fee $ 75, receipt number AVAEDC-9166382. by Jeff Tracy McCurry. (Faig, Alexander) |
| Filing 2 Civil Cover Sheet re #1 Complaint by Jeff Tracy McCurry. (Faig, Alexander) (Main Document 2 replaced to correct incorrectly saved PDF fillable form on 10/16/2023) (nneb, ). |
| Filing 1 Complaint ( Filing fee $ 402, receipt number AVAEDC-9166178.), filed by Jeff Tracy McCurry.(Faig, Alexander) |
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 Virginia 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
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.
