Cagle v. Arkansas Supreme Court
| Cody Lane Cagle |
| Arkansas Supreme Court and Dexter Payne |
| 4:2020cv01335 |
| November 12, 2020 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas |
| Jerome T Kearney |
| Lee P Rudofsky |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on January 6, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing 4
JUDGMENT: Consistent with #3 Order that was entered on this day, the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is denied without prejudice and this case is dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 01/06/2021. (ajt)
|
|
Filing 3
ORDER approving and adopting #2 Proposed Findings and Recommended Disposition in its entirety as this Court's findings in all respects; denying without prejudice #1 2254 habeas petition; dismissing without prejudice this case; and denying a Certificate of Appealability. Signed by Judge Lee P. Rudofsky on 01/06/2021. (ajt)
|
| Filing 2 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION recommending #1 Petitioner Cody Lane Cagle's 2254 habeas petition and this case be dismissed without prejudice and a Certificate of Appealability be denied. Objections due no later than 14 days from the date of the findings and recommendations. Signed by Magistrate Judge Jerome T. Kearney on 11/30/2020. (ajt) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Cody Lane Cagle.(kdr) |
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 Arkansas Eastern 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.
