Hunter v. Virginia's Dept. of Corr. et al
| Burnard Hunter |
| Virginia's Dept. of Corr., Davis and Mannis |
| 7:2021cv00497 |
| September 27, 2021 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Virginia |
| Robert S Ballou |
| Thomas T Cullen |
| Prisoner: Civil Rights |
| 42 U.S.C. ยง 1983 |
| Plaintiff |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on October 27, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT Prejudice. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 10/27/2021. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt)
|
|
Filing 3
MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by Judge Thomas T. Cullen on 10/27/2021. (Opinion mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt)
|
|
Filing 2
Order entered Conditionally Filing this action pursuant to 42 USC Section 1983; Regarding Prisoner Trust Account;Statement of Assets; 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 within 20 days Responses due by 10/21/2021. Signed by Magistrate Judge Robert S. Ballou on 9/28/2021. (Order mailed to Pro Se Party via US Mail)(slt)
|
|
Filing 1
COMPLAINT pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1983 against Davis, Mannis, Virginia's Dept. of Corr., filed by Burnard Hunter. (Attachments: #1 Cover Letter)(slt)
|
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.
