IBARRA v. RIVENBARK

IBARRA v. RIVENBARK

Petitioner:	SABAS IBARRA
Respondent:	R.R. RIVENBARK
Case Number:	1:2011cv00530
Filed:	July 5, 2011
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina
Office:	NCMD Office
County:	Davidson
Presiding Judge:	UNASSIGNED
Presiding Judge:	P. TREVOR SHARP
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 12, 2014	Filing 58 ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 3/11/2014 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 48 ; that Petitioner's Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Doc. # 47 ) is treated as a motion to alter or to amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and is denied. FURTHER that Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend to Supplement Petition for Rehearing and/or Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Doc. # 50 ) is denied. FURTHER that Petitioner's Motion to Expedite Judgment (Doc. # 54 ) is denied as moot. (Sheets, Jamie)
March 29, 2013	Filing 41 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 3/29/2013. ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition and to Supplement his Response to the Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 15 ) and Petit ioner's Second Motion for Leave to Amend to Withdraw Ground Five of the Petition (Docket Entry 18 ) are granted. RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 4 ) be granted, that the Petition (Docket Entry 2 ) be dismissed, and that Judgment be entered dismissing this action. (Butler, Carol)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 12, 2014

Filing 58 ORDER signed by JUDGE N. C. TILLEY, JR on 3/11/2014 adopting the Magistrate Judge's Recommendation 48 ; that Petitioner's Petition for Rehearing and Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Doc. # 47 ) is treated as a motion to alter or to amend a judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e) and is denied. FURTHER that Petitioner's Motion for Leave to Amend to Supplement Petition for Rehearing and/or Petition for Rehearing En Banc (Doc. # 50 ) is denied. FURTHER that Petitioner's Motion to Expedite Judgment (Doc. # 54 ) is denied as moot. (Sheets, Jamie)

March 29, 2013

Filing 41 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND RECOMMENDATION signed by MAG/JUDGE L. PATRICK AULD on 3/29/2013. ORDERED that Petitioner's Motion for Leave to File an Amended Petition and to Supplement his Response to the Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 15 ) and Petit ioner's Second Motion for Leave to Amend to Withdraw Ground Five of the Petition (Docket Entry 18 ) are granted. RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Docket Entry 4 ) be granted, that the Petition (Docket Entry 2 ) be dismissed, and that Judgment be entered dismissing this action. (Butler, Carol)

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: IBARRA v. RIVENBARK
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: SABAS IBARRA
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: R.R. RIVENBARK
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?