Arradondo v. Roy

Defendant: Tom Roy
Plaintiff: John Excel Arradondo
Case Number: 0:2012cv02576
Filed: October 9, 2012
Court: Minnesota District Court
County: Hennepin
Referring Judge: Steven E. Rau
Presiding Judge: Paul A. Magnuson
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed#Document Text
November 26, 2012 9 Opinion or Order of the Court ORDER: Adopting the Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge 8 ; Denying the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 ; Denying Petitioner's Application to proceed in forma pauperis 3 . This action is Dismissed with Prejudice. Petitioner will not be granted a Certificate of Appealability. LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY. (Written Opinion). Signed by The Hon. Paul A. Magnuson on 11/26/2012. (LLM)

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

Search for this case: Arradondo v. Roy
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Tom Roy
Represented By: Lee W Barry, III
Represented By: Jennifer R Coates
Represented By: Matthew Frank
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 [ Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: John Excel Arradondo
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 [ 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.