Pendergrass v. Lindamood
Petitioner: Danny Pendergrass
Respondent: Cherry Lindamood
Case Number: 2:2014cv00051
Filed: February 24, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Tennessee
Office: Greeneville Office
County: XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge: J Ronnie Greer
Presiding Judge: Dennis H Inman
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 27, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 14 MEMORANDUM OPINION: Based on the above analyses, this pro se state prisoners application for a writ of habeas corpus will be DENIED and this case will be DISMISSED. See Memorandum Opinion for details. (c/m Pro Se filer) Signed by District Judge J Ronnie Greer on 03/27/2017. (CAT)
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 Tennessee Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pendergrass v. Lindamood
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Danny Pendergrass
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: Cherry Lindamood
Represented By: Nicholas White Spangler
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?