Buggs v. Rickard

Buggs v. Rickard

Petitioner:	Marcus Buggs
Respondent:	Barbara Rickard
Case Number:	1:2018cv00588
Filed:	April 18, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office:	Bluefield Office
County:	McDowell
Presiding Judge:	Cheryl A. Eifert
Presiding Judge:	David A. Faber
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241
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
April 5, 2021	Filing 36 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court adopts the 34 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; DENIES plaintiff's 4 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241); GRANTS defendant's 24 , 30 requests for dismissal; DISMI SSES this matter with prejudice; and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 4/5/2021. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (mk)
October 30, 2019	Filing 32 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING MOTION AND EXHIBITS: Pending before the Court is Respondent's Motion to Seal. (ECF No. 31). The Court notes that the attached exhibits contain confidential information. Due to the confidential nature of the information contained in the exhibits, and the requirement that such information not be published, this Court ORDERS the Clerk to seal the Motion to Seal and the exhibits attached to the Motion to Seal. (ECF Nos. 31, 31-1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 10/30/2019. (cc: Petitioner; counsel of record) (mk)

Date Filed

Document Text

April 5, 2021

Filing 36 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER The Court adopts the 34 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge; DENIES plaintiff's 4 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2241); GRANTS defendant's 24 , 30 requests for dismissal; DISMI SSES this matter with prejudice; and directs the Clerk to remove this case from the court's active docket. The court DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge David A. Faber on 4/5/2021. (cc: plaintiff; counsel of record) (mk)

October 30, 2019

Filing 32 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER SEALING MOTION AND EXHIBITS: Pending before the Court is Respondent's Motion to Seal. (ECF No. 31). The Court notes that the attached exhibits contain confidential information. Due to the confidential nature of the information contained in the exhibits, and the requirement that such information not be published, this Court ORDERS the Clerk to seal the Motion to Seal and the exhibits attached to the Motion to Seal. (ECF Nos. 31, 31-1). Signed by Magistrate Judge Cheryl A. Eifert on 10/30/2019. (cc: Petitioner; counsel of record) (mk)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Buggs v. Rickard
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Marcus Buggs
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: Barbara Rickard
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?