BURKE v. BARROW
Petitioner: RICHIE BURKE
Respondent: DONALD BARROW
Case Number: 5:2014cv00118
Filed: March 26, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
Office: Macon Office
County: Baldwin
Presiding Judge: MARC THOMAS TREADWELL
Presiding Judge: CHARLES H WEIGLE
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
March 10, 2015 Opinion or Order Filing 22 ORDER ADOPTING as modified 19 Report and Recommendations and GRANTING 11 Motion to Dismiss. The Petition is DISMISSED as untimely. COA is DENIED. Any motion to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal is DENIED. Ordered by U.S. District Judge MARC THOMAS TREADWELL on 3/10/2015. (tlh)
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 Georgia Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BURKE v. BARROW
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: RICHIE BURKE
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 ]
Respondent: DONALD BARROW
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?