Lomax v. Smith

Lomax v. Smith

Petitioner:	Rodney Lomax
Respondent:	Keith Smith
Case Number:	1:2013cv02801
Filed:	December 20, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office:	Cleveland Office
County:	Cuyahoga
Presiding Judge:	Benita Y. Pearson
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
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
March 31, 2017	Filing 14 Memorandum of Opinion and Order The Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9 ) to be correct. The Court finds that Petitioner's Objections (ECF No. 11 ) raise no arguments (factual or legal) that hav e not been fully addressed by the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9 ). Therefore, Petitioner's Objections (ECF No. 11 ) are overruled and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9 ) of the Magistrate Judge is adopted. Rodney Lomax's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 3/31/2017. (JLG)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 31, 2017

Filing 14 Memorandum of Opinion and Order The Court finds the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9 ) to be correct. The Court finds that Petitioner's Objections (ECF No. 11 ) raise no arguments (factual or legal) that hav e not been fully addressed by the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9 ). Therefore, Petitioner's Objections (ECF No. 11 ) are overruled and the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 9 ) of the Magistrate Judge is adopted. Rodney Lomax's Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied. The Court certifies, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed. R. App. P. 22(b). Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 3/31/2017. (JLG)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lomax v. Smith
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Rodney Lomax
Represented By:	Paul A. Mancino, Jr.
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: Keith Smith
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?