McPherson v. Ryan et al
| Steven Frank McPherson |
| Charles L Ryan and Thomas C Horne |
| 4:2014cv02120 |
| May 30, 2014 |
| US District Court for the District of Arizona |
| Tucson Division Office |
| Pinal |
| Cindy K Jorgenson |
| Bruce G Macdonald |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
42
ORDER that a certificate of appealability is DENIED, because reasonable jurists would not find the Court's ruling debatable. It is further Ordered granting in part and denying in part 38 Motion for Certificate of Appealability re: Appeal [3 9] and to Amend Withdrawal Order (Dkt 37 ). The motion is granted to permit counsel to file a Notice of Appeal, and the motion to amend, but is denied in all other respects. As previously ordered, Ms. Conn is otherwise relieved of her duties for the legal representation of Petitioner Steven Frank McPherson. Signed by Magistrate Judge Bruce G Macdonald on 4/23/2018. (MFR)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDERED that the 27 Report and Recommendation is accepted and adopted. Petitioners §2254 habeas petition is denied and this case is dismissed with prejudice. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close the file in this case. To the extent there may be post-judgment motions (such as a motion for a certificate of appealability), this case is referred back to Magistrate Judge Macdonald for any further proceedings. Signed by Judge James A Soto on February 27, 2018. (BAR)
|
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
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.
