Timothy Joseph McGhee v. Kevin Chappell
Petitioner: Timothy Joseph McGhee
Respondent: Kevin Chappell
Case Number: 2:2012cv03578
Filed: April 25, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Central District of California
Presiding Judge: Charles F. Eick
Presiding Judge: John A Kronstadt
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
October 16, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 114 JUDGMENT by Judge John A. Kronstadt. Pursuant to the Order Accepting Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations of U.S. Magistrate Judge, It is Adjudged that the First Amended Petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice. (MD JS-6, Case Terminated). (sp)
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: Timothy Joseph McGhee v. Kevin Chappell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Respondent: Kevin Chappell
Represented By: Tannaz Kouhpainezhad
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 ]
Petitioner: Timothy Joseph McGhee
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?