Luney v. Warden Deborah A. Hickey, et al.

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Kentucky Eastern District Luney v. Warden Deborah A. Hickey, et al.

Luney v. Warden Deborah A. Hickey, et al.

Petitioner:	Joseph Anthony Luney
Respondent:	Deborah A. Hickey and Jack Conway
Case Number:	6:2013cv00026
Filed:	February 1, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office:	London Office
County:	Clay
Presiding Judge:	Danny C. Reeves
Presiding Judge:	Candace J. Smith
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
June 21, 2013	Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith [Record No. 14 ] is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED herein by reference. 2. Petitioner Joseph Anthony Luney's Pro Se Object ions to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 3. The Petition filed on February 1, 2013 [Record No. 1 ] is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 4. A Judgment shall be entered this date in favor of the Respondents, Deborah A . Hickey, Warden of the FMC in Lexington, Kentucky, and Jack Conway, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 5. For the reasons outlined above, the Court concludes that a Certificate of Appealability should not issue with respect to any matter raised by the Petitioner. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 06/21/2013.(KJA)cc: COR, mailed paper copy to pro se filer

Date Filed

Document Text

June 21, 2013

Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION & ORDER: ORDERED as follows: 1. The Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Candace J. Smith [Record No. 14 ] is ADOPTED and INCORPORATED herein by reference. 2. Petitioner Joseph Anthony Luney's Pro Se Object ions to the Report and Recommendation are OVERRULED. 3. The Petition filed on February 1, 2013 [Record No. 1 ] is DISMISSED and STRICKEN from the Court's docket. 4. A Judgment shall be entered this date in favor of the Respondents, Deborah A . Hickey, Warden of the FMC in Lexington, Kentucky, and Jack Conway, Attorney General for the Commonwealth of Kentucky. 5. For the reasons outlined above, the Court concludes that a Certificate of Appealability should not issue with respect to any matter raised by the Petitioner. Signed by Judge Danny C. Reeves on 06/21/2013.(KJA)cc: COR, mailed paper copy to pro se filer

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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Luney v. Warden Deborah A. Hickey, et al.
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Joseph Anthony Luney
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: Deborah A. Hickey
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: Jack Conway
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?