Carr v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE 2)
Case Number: 3:2006cv00547
Filed: June 20, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama
Office: Opelika Office
Presiding Judge: Delores R. Boyd
Presiding Judge: Myron H. Thompson
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 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
June 30, 2006 Opinion or Order Filing 7 FINAL JUDGMENT that 5 Objections are overruled; The 4 Report and Recommendation is adopted; The 1 Petition for Writ of habeas Corpus is denied because the required permission has not been obtained from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. Co sts 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 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Judge Myron H. Thompson on 6/30/06. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(cb, ) Modified on 7/20/2006 to correct title of order (cb, ).
June 23, 2006 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER granting 2 Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis except to the extent payment is required under this order . Signed by Judge Delores R. Boyd on 6/23/2006. (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: Carr v. State of Alabama et al (INMATE 2)
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?