Norman v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE3)
| Alphonso Norman |
| State of Alabama, Bruce Pearson and Troy King |
| 2:2008cv00229 |
| March 28, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Montgomery |
| Susan Russ Walker |
| William Keith Watkins |
| 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
28
ORDER adopting the 22 RECOMMENDATION; overruling the 27 Objection; denying the petition 1 for habeas corpus; denying the 27 MOTION for de novo hearing; dismissing the case with prejudice. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 1/13/2010. (br, )
|
|
Filing
23
VACATED PURSUANT TO 26 ORDER. ORDER adopting the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate; denying Petitioner's 1 petition for a writ of habeas corpus; dismissing the case with prejudice. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 12/17/2009. (br, ) Modified on 1/5/2010 (cc, ).
|
|
Filing
22
RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that the 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus pursuant to 28 USC 2254 be denied and this case dismissed with prejudice, because (1) Norman fails to establish a basis for federal habeas relief and (2) his petition is time-barred. Objections to R&R due by 12/6/2009. Signed by Honorable Susan Russ Walker on 11/23/09. (sl, )
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
