Meeks v. McClintock

Meeks v. McClintock

Petitioner:	Robert Meeks
Respondent:	Susan McClintock
Case Number:	4:2012cv00335
Filed:	May 1, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the District of Arizona
Office:	Tucson Division Office
County:	Graham
Presiding Judge:	Charles R Pyle (PS)
Presiding Judge:	Raner C Collins
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
July 24, 2015	Filing 36 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 25 . Petitioner's Motion to for Leave to File a Reply to Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation 29 is DENIED. The portions of Petitioner's Mot ion amounting to a substantive reply (Doc. 29 , Memorandum of Points and Authorities) are STRUCK from the record. Petitioner's Objections to Magistrate Judge Pyle's Report and Recommendation 25 ) are DENIED. Petitioner's Motion to Ad d New Legal Authority to Petitioner's §2241 Petition 33 is DENIED. Petitioner's Motion for a Telephonic Status Conference 34 is DENIED. Petitioners Motion to Add New Legal Authority Supporting that this Court has Jurisdiction Ove r Petitioners 28 U.S.C. §2241 Petition 35 is DENIED. Petitioners Petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241 1 and this case are DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. In the event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 7/22/15. (See attached PDF for complete information.) (KAH)

Date Filed

Document Text

July 24, 2015

Filing 36 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 25 . Petitioner's Motion to for Leave to File a Reply to Respondent's Response to Petitioner's Objections to the Report and Recommendation 29 is DENIED. The portions of Petitioner's Mot ion amounting to a substantive reply (Doc. 29 , Memorandum of Points and Authorities) are STRUCK from the record. Petitioner's Objections to Magistrate Judge Pyle's Report and Recommendation 25 ) are DENIED. Petitioner's Motion to Ad d New Legal Authority to Petitioner's §2241 Petition 33 is DENIED. Petitioner's Motion for a Telephonic Status Conference 34 is DENIED. Petitioners Motion to Add New Legal Authority Supporting that this Court has Jurisdiction Ove r Petitioners 28 U.S.C. §2241 Petition 35 is DENIED. Petitioners Petition under 28 U.S.C. §2241 1 and this case are DISMISSED. The Clerk of the Court must enter judgment accordingly and close this case. In the event Movant files an appeal, the Court declines to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Chief Judge Raner C Collins on 7/22/15. (See attached PDF for complete information.) (KAH)

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: Meeks v. McClintock
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert Meeks
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Susan McClintock
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	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| 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?