Badger v. Amite County Circuit Court

Badger v. Amite County Circuit Court

Petitioner:	Craytonia Latroy Badger
Respondent:	Amite County Circuit Court
Case Number:	5:2016cv00102
Filed:	October 27, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Mississippi
Office:	Western Office
County:	Amite
Presiding Judge:	Michael T. Parker
Presiding Judge:	David C. Bramlette
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241
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
August 21, 2017	Filing 23 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker's Report and Recommendation of July 24, 2017 19 is ADOPTED in its entirety as the findings and conclusions o f this Court; FURTHER ORDERED that because the Court treats the Petitioner's "Motion to Amend Traverse Reply or Alternatively to Reply to Respondent's... New Submissions" 11 as an additional Response to the Motion to Dismiss, a nd not as a Motion per se, it is DENIED AS MOOT; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's Motion to Stay All State Court Proceedings 16 is DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 5 is GRANTED; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioners Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed without prejudice. A Final Judgment shall be entered this date in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing the Petitioner's Petition without prejudice. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 8/21/2017 (ND)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 21, 2017

Filing 23 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 - IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Michael T. Parker's Report and Recommendation of July 24, 2017 19 is ADOPTED in its entirety as the findings and conclusions o f this Court; FURTHER ORDERED that because the Court treats the Petitioner's "Motion to Amend Traverse Reply or Alternatively to Reply to Respondent's... New Submissions" 11 as an additional Response to the Motion to Dismiss, a nd not as a Motion per se, it is DENIED AS MOOT; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioner's Motion to Stay All State Court Proceedings 16 is DENIED; FURTHER ORDERED that the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss 5 is GRANTED; FURTHER ORDERED that the Petitioners Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus Under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is dismissed without prejudice. A Final Judgment shall be entered this date in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, dismissing the Petitioner's Petition without prejudice. Signed by Honorable David C. Bramlette, III on 8/21/2017 (ND)

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

Search for this case: Badger v. Amite County Circuit Court
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Craytonia Latroy Badger
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: Amite County Circuit Court
Represented By:	Frances Patterson Croft-State Gov
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?