Marek v. Schriro et al
2:2006cv03077 |
December 26, 2006 |
US District Court for the District of Arizona |
Phoenix Division Office |
Jacqueline J Marshall (PS) |
Roslyn O Silver |
Habeas Corpus (General) |
28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
None |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
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, ) |
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.