Case Information: 05-CV-1279 | |||
Short Caption: | STEWART ANTHONY RICE V. JEROME WALKER | Classification: | Appeals - Civil - Landlord And Tenant |
Superior Court or Agency Case Number: | LTB20186-05 | Filed Date: | 10/26/2005 |
| |||
Opening Event Date: | 10/26/2005 | Case Status: | Closed |
Record Completed: | Post-Decision Matter Pending: | ||
Briefs Completed: | |||
Argued/Submitted: | |||
Disposition: | Next Scheduled Action: | ||
Mandate Issued: | 02/06/2006 | ||
Costs Waived |
Party Information | |||||||||
Appellate Role | Party Name | IFP | Attorney(s) | Arguing Attorney | E-Filer | ||||
Appellant | Stewart Anthony Rice | Y | Pro Se | N | |||||
Appellee | Jerome Walker | N |
|
Events | ||||
Event Date | Status | Description | Result | |
10/26/2005 | NOTICE OF APPEAL | |||
11/29/2005 | ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE that appellant shall within 20 days from the date of this order why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as having been taken from a non-appealable order. See Finkelstein, Thompson & Loughran v. Hemispherx Biopharma, Inc. 774 A.2d 332, 339 (d.C. 2001). (BY: ETW) | |||
11/29/2005 | TMC - OTSC | |||
12/21/2005 | On consideration of this court's November 29, 2005, show cause why this appeal should not be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction as having been taken from a non-appealable order and there appearing to be no response thereto and it further appearing that appellant is proceeding in forma pauperis, it is ORDERED that the appeal is HEREBY DEEMED AS TAKEN FROM THE September 26, 2005, order since any attempt to appeal the August 12, 2005, judgment or September 15, 2005, order is untimely. It is *****MORE***** | |||
12/21/2005 | F/ORDERED that appellant shall within 10 days from the date of this order file with the Appeals Coordinator's Office a request for preparation of transcripts of proceedings in the Superior Court, on motion with notice, to the appropriate motions or trial judge, for determination in accordance with Hancock v. Mutual of Omaha Ins. Co., 472 A.2d 867 (D.C. 1984). See D.C. App. R. 10 (b)(5)(A). It is FURTHER ORDERED that appellant shall simultaneously file a copy of that motion with this court. It is FURTHER ORDERED that appellant's failure to respond to any order of this court, including this order, shall subject this appeal to dismissal without further notice for lack of prosecution. See D.C. App. R. 13(a). (TENEST) | |||
01/13/2006 | ORDERED that this appeal is HEREBY DISMISSED. See D.C. App. R. 13. (BY: ETW) lw | |||
01/13/2006 | DISMISSED | |||
02/06/2006 | MANDATE ISSUED |