Ward v. Apker

Petitioner: Jonathan Jovan Ward
Respondent: Craig Apker
Case Number: 4:2010cv00743
Filed: December 13, 2010
Court: Arizona District Court
Office: Tucson Division Office
County: Pima
Referring Judge: Glenda E Edmonds
Presiding Judge: Cindy K Jorgenson
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2241
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 18, 2011 15 Opinion or Order of the Court IT IS HEREBY ORDERED as follows: Magistrate Judge Edmonds Report and Recommendation (Doc. 14) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED. Petitioners §2241 habeas petition is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED with prejudice. A Certificate of Appealability is DENIED and shall not issue. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment accordingly and close the file in this matter. Signed by Judge Jennifer G Zipps on 11/18/11.(KAD)

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: Ward v. Apker
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Jonathan Jovan Ward
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Craig Apker
Represented By: Lawrence Corbin Lee
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ 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?