Postell v. Bradt

Postell v. Bradt

Petitioner:	Rodney Postell
Respondent:	Mark Bradt
Case Number:	1:2009cv04853
Filed:	May 22, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office:	Foley Square Office
County:	Westchester
Presiding Judge:	Edgardo Ramos
Presiding Judge:	Lisa Margaret Smith
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
March 31, 2017	Filing 38 OPINION AND ORDER adopting 33 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS: For the reasons set forth above, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Smith's Report in its entirety and Postell's petition for a writ of hab eas corpus is DENIED. As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); see also, e.g., Matthews v. United States, 682 F.3d 180, 185 (2d Cir. 2012). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/31/2017) (jwh)
November 13, 2013	Filing 31 OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion (Doc. 25). It is SO ORDERED. re: 25 MOTION FOR RELIEF OF A JUDGMENT OR ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 60(B)(6) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE filed by Rodney Postell. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 11/13/2013). Copies Mailed by Chambers. (rjm).

Date Filed

Document Text

March 31, 2017

Filing 38 OPINION AND ORDER adopting 33 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re: 1 PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS: For the reasons set forth above, the Court adopts Magistrate Judge Smith's Report in its entirety and Postell's petition for a writ of hab eas corpus is DENIED. As Petitioner has not made a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, a certificate of appealability will not issue. See 28 U.S.C. 2253(c); see also, e.g., Matthews v. United States, 682 F.3d 180, 185 (2d Cir. 2012). The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to close this case. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 3/31/2017) (jwh)

November 13, 2013

Filing 31 OPINION AND ORDER. For the reasons set forth in this Opinion and Order, Petitioner's motion for reconsideration is DENIED. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to terminate the motion (Doc. 25). It is SO ORDERED. re: 25 MOTION FOR RELIEF OF A JUDGMENT OR ORDER PURSUANT TO RULE 60(B)(6) IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE filed by Rodney Postell. (Signed by Judge Edgardo Ramos on 11/13/2013). Copies Mailed by Chambers. (rjm).

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

Search for this case: Postell v. Bradt
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Rodney Postell
Represented By:	Michael Thomas Mullen
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: Mark Bradt
Represented By:	John James Sergi
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?