Christopher Bolling v. Harold Clarke
CHRISTOPHER SHAWN BOLLING |
HAROLD W. CLARKE, Director of Virginia Department of Corrections |
18-6164 |
February 20, 2018 |
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Filing 407027943 UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis [1000265273-2]. A certificate of appealability is denied. Originating case number: 7:17-cv-00298-GEC-RSB. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency [1000314358]. Mailed to: Christopher Shawn Bolling. [18-6164] |
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: Christopher Bolling 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: CHRISTOPHER SHAWN BOLLING | |
Represented By: | Christopher Shawn Bolling |
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: | Laura Haeberle Cahill |
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.