Harper v. Ballard

Harper v. Ballard

Petitioner:	Roger Lee Harper
Respondent:	David Ballard
Case Number:	2:2013cv07421
Filed:	April 8, 2013
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office:	Charleston Office
County:	Fayette
Presiding Judge:	Dwane L. Tinsley
Presiding Judge:	John T. Copenhaver
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
March 27, 2015	Filing 50 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 42 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, granting respondent's 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment, denying petitioner's 34 MOTION to Deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), F.R. Civ. P. re: 31 MOTION by David Ballard for Summary Judgment, and dismissing the 2 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 3/27/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties; magistrate judge; petitioner) (tmh)
February 12, 2014	Filing 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 22 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting petitioner's 15 motion to amend his section 2254 petition and given leave to include Grounds 4, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 from his direct appeal, as more fully discussed in the PF&R; denying without prejudice respondent's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter is recommitted to the magistrate judge under the terms of the original referral order. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 2/12/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 27, 2015

Filing 50 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 42 Proposed Findings and Recommendations by Magistrate Judge, granting respondent's 31 MOTION for Summary Judgment, denying petitioner's 34 MOTION to Deny Respondent's Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), F.R. Civ. P. re: 31 MOTION by David Ballard for Summary Judgment, and dismissing the 2 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 3/27/2015. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented parties; magistrate judge; petitioner) (tmh)

February 12, 2014

Filing 23 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER adopting the 22 Proposed Findings and Recommendation by Magistrate Judge; granting petitioner's 15 motion to amend his section 2254 petition and given leave to include Grounds 4, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18, 19, and 21 from his direct appeal, as more fully discussed in the PF&R; denying without prejudice respondent's 12 Motion for Summary Judgment. This matter is recommitted to the magistrate judge under the terms of the original referral order. Signed by Judge John T. Copenhaver, Jr. on 2/12/2014. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (taq)

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: Harper v. Ballard
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Roger Lee Harper
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: David Ballard
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?