Marek v. Schriro et al
Case Number: 2:2006cv03077
Filed: December 26, 2006
Court: US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office: Phoenix Division Office
Presiding Judge: Jacqueline J Marshall (PS)
Presiding Judge: Roslyn O Silver
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
November 17, 2008 Opinion or Order Filing 22 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus : The Magistrate Judge recommends that the District Court, Dismiss with Prejudice Petitioner's Petion for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 . The parties shall have 10 days from the date of service of a copy of this recommendation within which to file specific written objections with the District Court. Thereafter, the parties have 10 days within which to file a response to the objections. If any objections are filed, this action sh ould be designated case number: CV 06-3077-PHX-ROS. Failure to timely file objections to any factual or legal determination of the Magistrate Judge may be considered a waiver of a party's right to de novo consideration of the issues. See attached pdf for complete information. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jacqueline J Marshall on 11/17/08. (SGG, )
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 Arizona District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Marek v. Schriro et al
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?