Postell v. Humphrey
| 1:2005cv00096 |
| October 2, 2006 |
| US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia |
| Albany Office |
| Richard L. Hodge |
| W. Louis Sands |
| Habeas Corpus: General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| 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
75
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 73 Report and Recommendations. Petitioner's Objection 74 is overruled. The Court dismisses with prejudice Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 10/2/2013. (bcl)
|
|
Filing
65
ORDER denying 60 Motion for Default Judgment; adopting Report and Recommendations re 64 Report and Recommendations. Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 2/22/2011 (bcl)
|
|
Filing
53
ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 50 Report and Recommendations. Case is ORDERED to proceed. Petitioner's objection at doc. 51 is OVERRULED.Ordered by Judge W. Louis Sands on 4/5/2010 (bcl)
|
|
Filing
50
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Timothy Postell. Objections to R&R due by 3/19/2009. Ordered by U.S. Mag. Judge Richard L. Hodge on 02/24/2009. (asb)
|
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 Georgia Middle 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
| Search for this case: Postell v. Humphrey | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | 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.
