Reginald Hardy v. Harold Clarke
REGINALD HARDY |
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections |
15-6141 |
January 30, 2015 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
Habeas Corpus |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 405518434 UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999534543-2], denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999522477-2]; denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999534539-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999534538-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00748-HEH-RCY Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999609928]. Mailed to: R. Hardy. [15-6141] |
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: Reginald Hardy v. Harold Clarke | |
---|---|
Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
Petitioner - appellant: REGINALD HARDY | |
Represented By: | Reginald Hardy |
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: HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections | |
Represented By: | |
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.