Jeffries v. Morgan
Case Number: 3:2005cv00066
Filed: September 16, 2005
Court: US District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
Presiding Judge: Karen K. Caldwell
Presiding Judge: J. Gregory Wehrman
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed Document Text
December 10, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 41 JUDGMENT: (1) the petition for a writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and judgment is entered in favor of respondent; (2) this judgment is FINAL; and (3) this matter is STRICKEN from the active docket Signed by Judge Karen K. Caldwell on 12/10/2009.(CBD)cc: COR
March 24, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 38 SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT the petitioners petition for writ of habeas corpus 1 , as fully considered on remand to this court, be DENIED, and that this case be dismissed and stricken from the active docket.Partic ularized objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed with the Clerk of Court within ten (10) days of the date of service or further appeal is waived.. Signed by Magistrate Judge J. Gregory Wehrman on 3/24/2009. (Objections to R&R due by 4/10/2009)(CBD)cc: COR
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 Kentucky Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Jeffries v. Morgan
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.

Why Is My Information Online?