Parsley v. SWVRJA et al
| Kevin Parsley |
| SWVRJA, Major Brain Parks and Scott County Sheriff |
| 7:2018cv00627 |
| December 14, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
| James P Jones |
| Pamela Meade Sargent |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 24, 2019. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 6
ORDER denying #5 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 1/24/2019. (tvt)
|
| Filing 5 MOTION for Reconsideration re #4 Order Dismissing Case by Kevin Parsley. |
|
Filing 4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE without prejudice (Order and/or Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party). Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 1/15/2019. (tvt)
|
| Filing 3 OPINION. Signed by Judge James P. Jones on 1/15/2019. (tvt) |
|
Filing 2
Order entered Conditionally Filing this action pursuant to 42 USC Section 1983; Advising inmate as to 3 strikes rule of PLRA; Assessing a filing fee; Deferring all action in this case; Advising inmate to comply within the allotted time and to notify of changes in address or risk dismissal Responses due by 1/9/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Pamela Meade Sargent on 12/17/2018. (tvt)
|
| Filing 1 COMPLAINT (Titled: "Amended Complaint" pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1983 against All Defendants, filed by Kevin Parsley. (Attachments: #1 Exhibits)(ck) |
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 Western 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.
