McCray v. Cummins et al (INMATE2)
Plaintiff: |
Robert L. McCray |
Defendant: |
John Cummins, Troy King and Parole Board State of Alabama |
Case Number: |
3:2009cv00659 |
Filed: |
July 15, 2009 |
Court: |
US District Court for the Middle District of Alabama |
Office: |
Opelika Office |
County: |
Montgomery |
Presiding Judge: |
Ira De Ment |
Presiding Judge: |
Terry F. Moorer |
Nature of Suit: |
None |
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 |
November 16, 2009 |
Filing
28
FINAL JUDGMENT in favor of the respondents and against the petitioner; the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed without prejudice. 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 Honorable Ira De Ment on 11/16/09. (br, )
|
November 12, 2009 |
Filing
26
ORDER and OPINION adopting 15 RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge; dismissing Petitioner's habeas claims in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(3)(A) to the extent they challenge petitioner's 1992 convictions for second degree kidnapping and second degree assault, as he has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing a federal district court to consider his successive habeas application; referring this case back to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. Signed by Honorable Ira De Ment on 11/12/09. (br, ) Modified on 11/12/2009 to clarify text (br, ).
|
September 22, 2009 |
Filing
22
RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE that the petition for habeas corpus relief filed by Petitioner Robert McCray be DISMISSED without prejudice to afford Petitioner an opportunity to exhaust all available state court remedies; it is further ORDERED that on or before October 5, 2009 the parties may file objections to the Recommendation. Objections to R&R due by 10/5/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 9/22/09. (br, )
|
September 1, 2009 |
Filing
20
ORDER granting 19 MOTION for Extension of Time to file response to 16 Supplemental Answer; Petitioner is GRANTED an extension from September 18, 2009 to and including September 25, 2009 to file said response. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 9/1/09. (br, )
|
August 28, 2009 |
Filing
18
ORDER that on or before September 18, 2009 Petitioner shall show cause why his petition should not be dismissed for failure to exhaust state remedies. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 8/28/09. (br, )
|
August 17, 2009 |
Filing
15
ORDER AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that: 1) To the extent the instant habeas application represents an attempt to once again challenge Petitioner's 1992 convictions for second degree kidnapping and second degree assault, such claim s are due to be DISMISSED in accordance with the provisions of 28 USC 2244(b)(3)(A) as Petitioner has failed to obtain the requisite order from the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals authorizing a federal district court to consider his successive habe as application; 2) This case be REFERRED back to the undersigned for further proceedings as directed herein; ORDERED that to the extent Petitioner seeks to challenge a revocation of parole, Respondents shall, on or before 9/3/2009, file an answer in response thereto in accordance with the provisions of the court's 5 Order; Objections to R&R due by 9/3/2009. Signed by Honorable Terry F. Moorer on 8/17/2009. (wcl, )
|
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
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?