Northcutt v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Justia Dockets & Filings Eleventh Circuit Alabama Middle District Northcutt v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Northcutt v. United States of America (INMATE 3)

Plaintiff:	Terry Don Northcutt
Defendant:	United States of America
Case Number:	2:2014cv00242
Filed:	April 3, 2014
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office:	Montgomery Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	William Keith Watkins
Presiding Judge:	Wallace Capel
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2255
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
September 26, 2017	Filing 42 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Petitioner's 41 objections are OVERRULED; (2) The 33 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (3) Northcutt's 28 USC 2255 motion is DENIED; (4) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; and (5) Northcutt is DENIED a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/26/2017. (wcl, )
September 26, 2016	Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: a ruling on Petitioner Terry Don Northcutt's 1 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence is held in abeyance pending additional briefing from the parties; DIRECTING the government to file a brief on the issues set out in this opinion, and on any other issues it deems relevant to resentencing; The government's brief shall be filed on or before 10/7/2016; DIRECTING Northcutt to file a response on or before 10/14/2016. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/26/2016. (wcl, )

Date Filed

Document Text

September 26, 2017

Filing 42 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: it is ORDERED as follows: (1) Petitioner's 41 objections are OVERRULED; (2) The 33 Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED; (3) Northcutt's 28 USC 2255 motion is DENIED; (4) This action is DISMISSED with prejudice; and (5) Northcutt is DENIED a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/26/2017. (wcl, )

September 26, 2016

Filing 24 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: a ruling on Petitioner Terry Don Northcutt's 1 motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence is held in abeyance pending additional briefing from the parties; DIRECTING the government to file a brief on the issues set out in this opinion, and on any other issues it deems relevant to resentencing; The government's brief shall be filed on or before 10/7/2016; DIRECTING Northcutt to file a response on or before 10/14/2016. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 9/26/2016. (wcl, )

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Northcutt v. United States of America (INMATE 3)
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Terry Don Northcutt
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Defendant: United States of America
Represented By:	Tommie Brown Hardwick
Represented By:	Susan R. Redmond
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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.

Why Is My Information Online?