Dawes v. Racette

Dawes v. Racette

Petitioner:	Ian Dawes
Respondent:	S.E. Racette
Case Number:	9:2012cv00718
Filed:	May 1, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of New York
Office:	Prisoner Office
County:	Chemung
Presiding Judge:	David E. Peebles
Presiding Judge:	Norman A. Mordue
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
November 25, 2014	Filing 19 MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that petitioner's Letter Motion for an extension of time to file objections (Dkt. No. 18 ) is granted and the Objection (Dkt. No. 17 ) is accepted. ORDERED that the Order (Dkt. No. 15 ) and Judgment (D kt. No. 16 ) are vacated and the case reopened. ORDERED that upon review of the entire file, including petitioner's Objection, the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14 ) is accepted in part and rejected in part. ORDERED that the petition (Dkt. No. 1) is denied and the case dismissed. ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability shall not be issued. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 11/24/14. (served on petitioner by regular mail)(alh, )
November 14, 2014	Filing 15 ORDER: ORDERED, that the 14 Report and Recommendation is hereby adopted in its entirety. The petition in this matter is denied in all respects. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability will be issued with respect to any of Petitioner's claims. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 11/14/14. (served on petitioner by regular mail) (alh, )

Date Filed

Document Text

November 25, 2014

Filing 19 MEMORANDUM-DECISION AND ORDER: ORDERED that petitioner's Letter Motion for an extension of time to file objections (Dkt. No. 18 ) is granted and the Objection (Dkt. No. 17 ) is accepted. ORDERED that the Order (Dkt. No. 15 ) and Judgment (D kt. No. 16 ) are vacated and the case reopened. ORDERED that upon review of the entire file, including petitioner's Objection, the Report and Recommendation (Dkt. No. 14 ) is accepted in part and rejected in part. ORDERED that the petition (Dkt. No. 1) is denied and the case dismissed. ORDERED that a Certificate of Appealability shall not be issued. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 11/24/14. (served on petitioner by regular mail)(alh, )

November 14, 2014

Filing 15 ORDER: ORDERED, that the 14 Report and Recommendation is hereby adopted in its entirety. The petition in this matter is denied in all respects. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), no certificate of appealability will be issued with respect to any of Petitioner's claims. Signed by Senior Judge Norman A. Mordue on 11/14/14. (served on petitioner by regular mail) (alh, )

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 New York Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Dawes v. Racette
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: S.E. Racette
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 ]
Petitioner: Ian Dawes
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?