BARBEE v. KELLER

BARBEE v. KELLER

Petitioner:	DARRELL WADE BARBEE
Respondent:	ALVIN W. KELLER, JR.
Case Number:	1:2011cv00238
Filed:	March 25, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office:	NCMD Office
County:	Stanly
Presiding Judge:	L. PATRICK AULD
Presiding Judge:	CATHERINE C. EAGLES
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 21, 2012	Filing 14 ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 11/21/2012, that the Court has reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge� 39;s report. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in full. ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5 ) is GRANTED and that the Habeas Petition (Doc. 2 ) is DISMISSED. A Judgment dismissi ng this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. Finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is not issued. (Taylor, Abby)
October 9, 2012	Filing 11 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 10/09/2012, that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 5 ) be granted, that the Habeas Petition (Docket Entry 2 ) be dismissed, and that Judgment be entered dismissing this action.(Taylor, Abby)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 21, 2012

Filing 14 ORDER signed by JUDGE CATHERINE C. EAGLES on 11/21/2012, that the Court has reviewed the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which objection was made and has made a de novo determination which is in accord with the Magistrate Judge� 39;s report. The Court adopts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in full. ORDERED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 5 ) is GRANTED and that the Habeas Petition (Doc. 2 ) is DISMISSED. A Judgment dismissi ng this action will be entered contemporaneously with this Order. Finding no substantial issue for appeal concerning the denial of a constitutional right affecting the conviction, nor a debatable procedural ruling, a certificate of appealability is not issued. (Taylor, Abby)

October 9, 2012

Filing 11 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 10/09/2012, that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 5 ) be granted, that the Habeas Petition (Docket Entry 2 ) be dismissed, and that Judgment be entered dismissing this action.(Taylor, Abby)

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 North Carolina Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: BARBEE v. KELLER
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: DARRELL WADE BARBEE
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: ALVIN W. KELLER, JR.
Represented By:	CLARENCE JOE DELFORGE, III
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?