Adams v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

Petitioner: Frankie Edward Adams
Respondent: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Case Number: 0:2011cv02862
Filed: September 28, 2011
Court: Minnesota District Court
Office: DMN Office
County: Sherburne
Presiding Judge: Michael J. Davis
Referring Judge: Steven E Rau
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2241
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
February 14, 2012 8 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 4 Report and Recommendation (Written Opinion). Petitioner's Amended Habeas Corpus Petition, 3 be DENIED; and This action be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Signed by Chief Judge Michael J. Davis on 2/14/12. (KMW)

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 Minnesota District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Adams v. Federal Bureau of Prisons
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Frankie Edward Adams
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Federal Bureau of Prisons
Represented By: Erika R Mozangue
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 [ 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 were retrieved from PACER, and should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.