Nunnally v. Woodson et al
| Kasheem Nunnally |
| D. Woodson, Lieutenant Carbitt, Lieutenant Rorier, Tolbert and Gayle |
| 3:2022cv00543 |
| August 10, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia |
| Mark R Colombell |
| M Hannah Lauck |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 Prisoner Civil Rights |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 7, 2024. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
MEMORANDUM ORDER (Conditionally Docketing Action) that this action is CONDITIONALLY docketed; Plaintiff to submit statement as set out herein within 30 days of entry hereof; Clerk to obtain certified copy of Plaintiff's trust fund account for 6 month period immediately preceding the initiation of this action; Plaintiff to return the Consent to Collection of Fees form within 30 days of entry hereof. SEE ORDER FOR DETAILS. Copy of Order mailed to Plaintiff. Signed by Magistrate Judge Mark R. Colombell on 10/6/2022. (adun, )
|
|
Filing 3
Letter from Kasheem Nunnally. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (smej, )
|
|
Filing 2
MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Kasheem Nunnally. (adun, )
|
|
Filing 1
Prisoner COMPLAINT against Carbitt, Gayle, Rorier, Tolbert, D. Woodson, filed by Kasheem Nunnally. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit 1a-1e, #2 Exhibit 2a-2g, #3 Exhibit 3a-3c, #4 Envelope)(adun, )
|
|
CONSENT to Jurisdiction by US Magistrate Judge by Kasheem Nunnally. (adun, )
|
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.
