Ryles v. Dunn et al (INMATE 3)
| Brandon Jamal Ryles |
| Jefferson S. Dunn, Walter Myers and Steven T. Marshall |
| 2:2018cv00569 |
| June 8, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
| Montgomery Office |
| Barbour |
| Terry F. Moorer |
| William Keith Watkins |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| 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
20
ORDER construing Ryles' 19 motion for a certificate of appealability and notice of appeal as containing a motion to appeal in forma pauperis; finding that Ryles has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right. In addition, the Court is of the opinion that Ryles' appeal has no legal or factual basis and, accordingly, is frivolous and not taken in good faith; ORDERING that Ryles' 19 Motion for Leave to Appeal in forma pauperis and Motion for Certificate of Appealability are DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 11/4/2021. (djy, )
|
|
Filing
18
FINAL JUDGMENT: In accordance with the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this case on this day, Final Judgment is entered in favor of the Respondent and against the Petitioner, and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. The Clerk of Court is DIRECTED to enter this document on the civil docket as a final judgment to FRCP 58. No costs are taxed. Signed by Chief Judge Emily C. Marks on 9/24/2021. (dmn, )
|
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.
