SEAY v. CAULEY

SEAY v. CAULEY

Petitioner:	HARRY RONALD SEAY
Respondent:	E.K. CAULEY
Case Number:	1:2011cv00353
Filed:	May 6, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office:	NCMD Office
County:	Forsyth
Presiding Judge:	UNASSIGNED
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
January 25, 2012	Filing 18 ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR., on 1/25/2012, adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation; that Respondent's motion for summary judgment [docket no. 6 ] be GRANTED, and that this action be DISMISSED. 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. (Lloyd, Donna)
September 7, 2011	Filing 15 ORDER, MEMORANDUM OPINION and RECOMMENDATION that Petitioner's motions to amend his petition (docket no. 9 ), to have counsel appointed (docket no. 10 ), and to have counsel appointed and an evidentiary hearing held (docket no. 11 ) are DENIED. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Respondents motion for summary judgment (docket no. 6 ) be GRANTED and that the petition be DISMISSED. Signed by MAG/JUDGE WALLACE W. DIXON on 9/7/2011. (Lapira, Sharon)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 25, 2012

Filing 18 ORDER signed by CHIEF JUDGE JAMES A. BEATY, JR., on 1/25/2012, adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation; that Respondent's motion for summary judgment [docket no. 6 ] be GRANTED, and that this action be DISMISSED. 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. (Lloyd, Donna)

September 7, 2011

Filing 15 ORDER, MEMORANDUM OPINION and RECOMMENDATION that Petitioner's motions to amend his petition (docket no. 9 ), to have counsel appointed (docket no. 10 ), and to have counsel appointed and an evidentiary hearing held (docket no. 11 ) are DENIED. IT IS RECOMMENDED that Respondents motion for summary judgment (docket no. 6 ) be GRANTED and that the petition be DISMISSED. Signed by MAG/JUDGE WALLACE W. DIXON on 9/7/2011. (Lapira, Sharon)

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: SEAY v. CAULEY
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: HARRY RONALD SEAY
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: E.K. CAULEY
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?