Smith v. The Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts

Justia Dockets & Filings First Circuit Massachusetts District Court Smith v. The Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts

Smith v. The Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts

Petitioner:	Thomas Smith
Respondent:	The Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts
Case Number:	1:2011cv10362
Filed:	March 3, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the District of Massachusetts
Office:	Boston Office
County:	Middlesex
Presiding Judge:	Nathaniel M. Gorton
Presiding Judge:	Leo T. Sorokin
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
May 7, 2013	Filing 45 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM and ORDER entered. Upon de novo review, petitioner's objections to the 37 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is accepted by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. 35 Motion to appoint counsel is also DENIED. This matter is accordingly DISMISSED.(Cicolini, Pietro)
February 9, 2012	Filing 21 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Adopting Report and Recommendations re 20 Report and Recommendations. As per the adoption of the Report and Recommendations, 16 Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED, and the decision is STAYED for fourteen days in order for Thomas Smith to have the opportunity to amend his Petition. Please see 20 Report and Recommendations for further details. (Moore, Kellyann)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 7, 2013

Filing 45 Judge F. Dennis Saylor, IV: MEMORANDUM and ORDER entered. Upon de novo review, petitioner's objections to the 37 Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge are overruled, and the Report and Recommendation is accepted by the Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is DENIED. 35 Motion to appoint counsel is also DENIED. This matter is accordingly DISMISSED.(Cicolini, Pietro)

February 9, 2012

Filing 21 Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton: ORDER entered. ORDER ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Adopting Report and Recommendations re 20 Report and Recommendations. As per the adoption of the Report and Recommendations, 16 Motion to Dismiss is ALLOWED, and the decision is STAYED for fourteen days in order for Thomas Smith to have the opportunity to amend his Petition. Please see 20 Report and Recommendations for further details. (Moore, Kellyann)

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

Search for this case: Smith v. The Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Thomas Smith
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: The Attorney General of the State of Massachusetts
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?