Walker v. Sprayberry

Walker v. Sprayberry

Petitioner:	CARLTON J WALKER
Respondent:	Kevin Sprayberry
Case Number:	6:2017cv00142
Filed:	November 1, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Georgia
Office:	Statesboro Office
County:	XX US, Outside State
Presiding Judge:	R. Stan Baker
Presiding Judge:	J. Randal Hall
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
October 30, 2018	Filing 10 ORDER ADOPTING 9 Report and Recommendations. The Petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed. Further the Court denies Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability and in forma pauperis status on appeal. This case stands closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/30/2018. (pts)
July 11, 2018	Filing 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DISMISS Walker's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DIRECT the Clerk to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case. It is further RECOMMENDED tha t the Court DENY Walker a Certificate of Appealability and DENY Walker leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific written objections within fourteen (1 4) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. (Objections to R&R due by 7/25/2018). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMNENDATION of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 7/11/2018. (ca)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 30, 2018

Filing 10 ORDER ADOPTING 9 Report and Recommendations. The Petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed. Further the Court denies Petitioner a Certificate of Appealability and in forma pauperis status on appeal. This case stands closed. Signed by Chief Judge J. Randal Hall on 10/30/2018. (pts)

July 11, 2018

Filing 9 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS of the Magistrate Judge that the Court DISMISS Walker's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus, and DIRECT the Clerk to enter the appropriate judgment of dismissal and to CLOSE this case. It is further RECOMMENDED tha t the Court DENY Walker a Certificate of Appealability and DENY Walker leave to proceed in forma pauperis on appeal. The Court ORDERS any party seeking to object to this Report and Recommendation to file specific written objections within fourteen (1 4) days of the date on which this Report and Recommendation is entered. (Objections to R&R due by 7/25/2018). ORDER directing service of the REPORT AND RECOMMNENDATION of the Magistrate Judge. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Stan Baker on 7/11/2018. (ca)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Walker v. Sprayberry
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: CARLTON J WALKER
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: Kevin Sprayberry
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?