Morris Randall, Jr. v. Harold Clarke
MORRIS LEE RANDALL, JR. |
HAROLD W. CLARKE |
15-7761 |
November 4, 2015 |
U.S. Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit |
Habeas Corpus |
Opinions
We have the following opinions for this case:
Description |
---|
Morris Randall, Jr. v. Harold Clarke |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 405981986 UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion certificate of appealability (Local Rule 22(a)) [999725570-2]. Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00562-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [999827432]. Mailed to: Morris Lee Randall, Jr. [15-7761] |
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: Morris Randall, Jr. 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: MORRIS LEE RANDALL, JR. | |
Represented By: | Morris Lee Randall |
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 | |
Represented By: | Donald Eldridge Jeffrey |
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.