Mobley v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Petitioner: James Mobley
Respondent: Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Case Number: 3:2009cv00061
Filed: February 13, 2009
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: MONTGOMERY
Presiding Judge: Sharon L Ovington
Presiding Judge: Thomas M Rose
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
November 18, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 57 DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Report and Recommendations filed on October 20, 2014 56 is ADOPTED in full, Petitioner's Motion for Correction to Previous Motion for Review and Reconsideration 55 is DENIED; and the case remains terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 11-18-2014. (de)
October 20, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 56 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 55 Petitioner's MOTION for Correction to Previous Motion for Review and Reconsideration be DENIED, and the case remain terminated on the docket of this Court. Objections to R&R due by 11/6/2014. Signed by Magistrate Chief Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 10-20-14. (mcm1)
December 5, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 52 DECISION AND ENTRY - It is therefore ORDERED that: 1. The Report and Recommendations docketed on November 2, 2011 (Doc. # 49 ) is ADOPTED in full; 2. James Mobleys Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Doc. # 1 ) is DENIED and DISMISSED; 3. A certificate of appealability under 28 U.S.C. §2253(c) shall not issue; and 4. The case is terminated on the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 12/05/11. (pb1)
August 22, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 48 DECISION AND ENTRY - IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT: 1. Mobley's Motion for Reconsideration for Appeal Bond Doc. 47 is DENIED; and 2. This case remains pending on the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Sharon L. Ovington on 8/22/2011. (kje1) Modified on 8/22/2011 to correct text (kje1).
September 4, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 31 ENTRY AND ORDER ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (Doc. 28 ) IN ITS ENTIRETY; OVERRULING MOBLEY'S OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION (Docs. 29 , 30 ); AND OVERRULING MOBLEY'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (Doc. 26 ). Signed by Judge Thomas M Rose on 9/4/09. (bev1, )
August 3, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 28 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Petitioner's Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. 26 ) be DENIED and the case remain pending on the Court's docket. OBJECTIONS TO R&R DUE BY 8/20/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 8/3/09. (bev1, )
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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Mobley v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: James Mobley
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: Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
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?