Tankesly v. Bell
| 3:2006cv00543 |
| May 25, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee |
| Nashville Office |
| William J. Haynes |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
69
ORDER: In accordance with the Memorandum filed herewith, the Respondent's motion to dismiss (Docket Entry No. 67) is GRANTED, and the Petitioner's motion for summary judgment (Docket Entry No. 61) and amended petition for the writ of habeas corpus are DENIED. This action is DISMISSED with prejudice. Petitioner is GRANTED a Certificate of Appealability on his non-defaulted claims. This is the Final Order in this action. It is so ORDERED. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 3/24/11. (Attachments: # 1 Attachment Text Searchable Order)(af)
|
|
Filing
64
MEMORANDUM OF THE COURT. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr. on 2/8/11. (Attachments: # 1 Text Searchable Version of Memorandum)(rd)
|
|
Filing
54
ORDER: This Motion for a Scheduling Conference 53 is Granted. The Conference is set for 12/3/2010 at 10:00 a.m. Signed by District Judge William J. Haynes, Jr on 11/22/10. (dt)
|
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 Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Tankesly v. Bell | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
