Raymon Dobbins v. Kuma Deboo
Petitioner - Appellant: RAYMON I. DOBBINS
Respondent - Appellee: KUMA DEBOO, Warden
Case Number: 10-6009
Filed: January 5, 2010
Court: U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus

Opinions

We have the following opinions for this case:

Date Filed Description
February 15, 2011 Raymon Dobbins v. Kuma Deboo

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
February 15, 2011 Opinion or Order Filing 403200606 UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--terminating Motion to extend filing time [998416654-2] Originating case number: 2:09-cv-00064-REM Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [998524976] [10-6009]
Access additional case information on PACER

Access the Case Summary and Docket Report to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Search for this case: Raymon Dobbins v. Kuma Deboo
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner - appellant: RAYMON I. DOBBINS
Represented By: Raymon I. Dobbins
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 - appellee: KUMA DEBOO, Warden
Represented By: Alan McGonigal
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?