Michael Edward Irving v. Swarthout

Michael Edward Irving v. Swarthout

Petitioner:	Michael Edward Irving
Respondent:	Warden Swarthout
Case Number:	2:2011cv04688
Filed:	June 1, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge:	Alicia G. Rosenberg
Presiding Judge:	John F. Walter
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)

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
February 18, 2014	Filing 32 ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge John F. Walter for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 12 . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United S tates Magistrate Judge. Petitioner has not filed any Objections to the Report. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (mp)
December 1, 2011	Filing 13 ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge John F. Walter for Report and Recommendation 12 . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Mag istrate Judge. Petitioner has not filed any Objections to the Report. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (gr)

Date Filed

Document Text

February 18, 2014

Filing 32 ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge John F. Walter for Report and Recommendation (Issued) 12 . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United S tates Magistrate Judge. Petitioner has not filed any Objections to the Report. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (mp)

December 1, 2011

Filing 13 ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS by Judge John F. Walter for Report and Recommendation 12 . Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 636, the Court has reviewed the Petition, records on file, and the Report and Recommendation of the United States Mag istrate Judge. Petitioner has not filed any Objections to the Report. The Court accepts the findings and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge. IT IS ORDERED that Respondent's motion to dismiss is denied. The matter is referred to the Magistrate Judge for further proceedings. (gr)

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 California Central District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Michael Edward Irving v. Swarthout
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Michael Edward Irving
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: Warden Swarthout
Represented By:	Charles S 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	[ 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?