Thompson v. Pearson et al
| Michael Thompson |
| Bruce Pearson and United States Department of Justice |
| 5:2009cv00163 |
| October 8, 2009 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi |
| Western Office |
| Yazoo |
| David C. Bramlette |
| Michael T. Parker |
| None |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (Federal) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
20
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. The Report and Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker is hereby adopted as the finding of this Court, and the Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus 1 should be dismissed with prejudice. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 11/29/2010 (dtj)
|
|
Filing
18
ORDER denying 17 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on November 15, 2010. (KM)
|
|
Filing
16
ORDER denying 14 Motion for Certification of Constitutionality. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker on October 25, 2010. (KM)
|
|
Filing
6
ORDER Dismissing United States Department of Justice with prejudice. The United States Districk Clerk is hereby directed to issue summons to Bruce Pearson and Respondent Bruce Pearson to file an answer within 20 days of the service of a copy of this order. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 2/9/10 (MGB)
|
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 Mississippi Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
