Bowring v. Milyard et al
| John B. Bowring |
| Kevin L. Milyard and A. Chapman |
| 1:2011cv00937 |
| April 7, 2011 |
| US District Court for the District of Colorado |
| Denver Office |
| Kit Carson |
| Boyd N. Boland |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
33
ORDER of Dismissal. The Application for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 is denied and the action is dismissed. No certificate of appealability shall issue, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 9/13/11. (lsw, )
|
|
Filing
13
ORDER to file Pre-Answer Response within 21 days from the date of this order, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 6/23/11. (lsw, )
|
|
Filing
7
ORDER Overruling Objection. ORDERED that the letter titled "Ex parte J. Bowring, 11 CV 00937 to Order 13 April received 19 April" 6 , which the Court has construed liberally as an objection filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1)(A), i s overruled. FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bowring will be allowed 30 days from the date of this order to cure the deficiencies designated in the 4/13/11, order to cure. FURTHER ORDERED that Mr. Bowring discontinue sending letters directly to judicial officers, by Judge Lewis T. Babcock on 5/5/11. (lyg, )
|
|
Filing
4
ORDER Directing Applicant to Cure Deficiency, within 30 day, by Magistrate Judge Boyd N. Boland on 4/13/11. (lygsl, )
|
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 Colorado District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
