Savage v. Marshall et al (INMATE 1)

Case Number: 2:2006cv00827
Filed: September 15, 2006
Court: Alabama Middle District Court
Office: Montgomery Office
Referring Judge: Delores R. Boyd
Presiding Judge: Myron H. Thompson
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
September 28, 2006 7 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER as follows: (1) The petitioner's 5 objections are overruled; (2) The United States Magistrate Judge's 4 recommendation is adopted; (3) The 1 Petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied because petitioner has failed to exhaust s tate remedies. Costs are taxed against petitioner, for which execution may issue. The clerk of the court is directed to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment pursuant to Rule 58 of the FRCP. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 9/28/2006. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cb, )
September 20, 2006 4 Opinion or Order of the Court REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the petition for habeas corpus relief be denied and that the petition be dismissed without prejudice to afford the petitioner an opportunity to exhaust all available state court remedies. On or before 10/3/06 the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 9/20/2006. (cb, )

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 Alabama Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Savage v. Marshall et al (INMATE 1)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ 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?