Vonehl v. Lovett et al
| Adam Michael Vonehl |
| S. Lovett, Office of Inspector General and Federal Bureau of Prisons Central Office |
| 5:2023cv00072 |
| March 1, 2023 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia |
| John Preston Bailey |
| James P Mazzone |
| Habeas Corpus (Prison Condition) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331 Fed. Question |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on April 27, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 5
ORDER DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT PREJUDICE. Petitioner's pending #4 Motion to Compel is DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk is DIRECTED to STRIKE this action from the active docket of this Court. Signed by District Judge John Preston Bailey on 4/27/23. (Pro Se Petitioner via CM/rrr) (lmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 4/27/2023: #1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (lmm).
|
| Filing 4 PETITIONER'S MOTION TO COMPEL/ REQUESTING TRANSFER by Adam Michael Vonehl. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(lmm) |
| Filing 3 RETURN RECEIPT as to #2 Notice. SERVICE ACCEPTED on 3/3/23 per USPS. (lmm) |
| Filing 2 NOTICE OF DEFICIENT PLEADING AND INTENT TO DISMISS. (Attachments: #1 Bivens Packet) (Pro Se Plaintiff via CM/rrr)(lmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 3/1/2023: #2 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (lmm). |
| Filing 1 PETITIONER'S EMERGENCY PETITION FOR PROTECTION ORDER AND OR TEMPORARY INJUNCTION filed by Adam Michael Vonehl. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (chambers and PSLC notified of emergency filing) (lmm) |
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.
- 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.
