ADAMS v. FRAZIER
Petitioner: QUINTON ADAMS
Respondent: DAVID FRAZIER
Case Number: 1:2012cv00160
Filed: October 23, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Middle District of Georgia
Office: Albany Office
County: Grady
Presiding Judge: Thomas Q Langstaff
Presiding Judge: W. Louis Sands
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 16, 2014 Opinion or Order Filing 16 ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendations. Accordingly, Petitioner's Petition for Habeas Corpus is Dismissed. The Court denies Petitioner a certificate of appealability. Ordered by U.S. District Judge W LOUIS SANDS on 5/16/14 (wks)
Access additional case information on PACER

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 this case: ADAMS v. FRAZIER
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: QUINTON ADAMS
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: DAVID FRAZIER
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.


Why Is My Information Online?