Lockhart v. Deboo

Lockhart v. Deboo

Plaintiff:	Randall Lockhart
Defendant:	Kuma Deboo
Case Number:	3:2008cv00174
Filed:	December 1, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Office:	Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County:	Gilmer
Presiding Judge:	John Preston Bailey
Presiding Judge:	John S. Kaull
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	U.S. Government Defendant
Jury Demanded By:	28:2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal)

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
May 5, 2009	Filing 17 ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; granting 7 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Kuma Deboo. Petitioner's 2241 1 is denied and dismissed with prejudice and is stricken from the record. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 5/5/2009. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Petitioner.(tlg)
April 21, 2009	Filing 14 OPINION/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 7 MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Show Cause Order filed by Kuma Deboo and 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Randall L. Lockhar t. Recommending that Respondent's 7 Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 5/5/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull on 4/21/09. Copy mailed to pro se petitioner by certified mail return receipt.(cwm)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 5, 2009

Filing 17 ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION AND ADOPTING 14 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; granting 7 Motion to Dismiss; granting 7 Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Kuma Deboo. Petitioner's 2241 1 is denied and dismissed with prejudice and is stricken from the record. Signed by Chief Judge John Preston Bailey on 5/5/2009. Copy sent certified mail, return receipt to pro se Petitioner.(tlg)

April 21, 2009

Filing 14 OPINION/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 7 MOTION to Dismiss or in the Alternative MOTION for Summary Judgment and Response to Show Cause Order filed by Kuma Deboo and 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Randall L. Lockhar t. Recommending that Respondent's 7 Motion to Dismiss or in the Alternative, Motion for Summary Judgment be granted and that Petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be denied and dismissed with prejudice. Objections to R&R due by 5/5/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull on 4/21/09. Copy mailed to pro se petitioner by certified mail return receipt.(cwm)

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 West Virginia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lockhart v. Deboo
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Randall Lockhart
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 ]
Defendant: Kuma Deboo
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?