Simpson v. Clarke
| James Henry Simpson |
| Harold Clarke |
| 3:2019cv00724 |
| October 2, 2019 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| John A Gibney |
| Roderick C Young |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on November 25, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 7
ORDER. It is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE because Petitioner failed to return the standardized form for filing a 28 U.S.C. petition; and, 2.A certificate of appealability is DENIED. Petitioner notified of right to appeal. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 11/25/19. Copy of Memorandum Opinion and Order mailed to petitioner. (jsau, )
|
| Filing 6 MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge John A. Gibney, Jr. on 11/25/19. (jsau, ) |
| USCA Case Number 19-7735, USCA Case Manager R.Edwards, for #4 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal filed by James Henry Simpson. (lbre, ) |
| Filing 5 Transmission of Notice of Appeal to US Court of Appeals re #4 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (All case opening forms, plus the transcript guidelines, may be obtained from the Fourth Circuit's website at www.ca4.uscourts.gov) (tdai, ) |
| Assembled INITIAL Electronic Record Transmitted to 4CCA re #4 Notice of Interlocutory Appeal (tdai, ) |
| Filing 4 NOTICE OF INTERLOCUTORY APPEAL by James Henry Simpson re: #2 Memorandum Order. NO FILING FEE PAID. (walk, ) |
| Filing 3 COMPLAINT titled "Motion to Waive Exhaustion Requirement" against Harold Clarke, filed by James Henry Simpson. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D)(jsau, ) |
|
Filing 2
MEMORANDUM ORDER that if Petitioner wishes to proceed under 28 U.S.C. 2254, he must complete and return the form to the Court within twenty (20) days of the date of entry hereof. In the alternative, Petitioner may file, within twenty (20) days of the date of entry hereof, a motion to withdraw this action. If Petitioner fails to take any action within that time, the Court will dismiss the action without prejudice. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b) (please see Memorandum Order for additional information.) It is so ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Roderick C. Young on 10/19/2019. Copy mailed to Petitioner with a 28 USC 2254 form enclosed. (walk, )
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT against Harold Clarke titled "Motion to Waive Exhaustion Requirement", filed by James Henry Simpson. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Envelope)(jsau, ) |
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
| Search for this case: Simpson v. Clarke | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Defendant: Harold Clarke | |
| 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: James Henry Simpson | |
| 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.
