Waldron v. Voorhies

Waldron v. Voorhies

Petitioner:	Douglas Waldron
Respondent:	Edwin C. Voorhies, Jr.
Case Number:	1:2007cv01916
Filed:	June 27, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office:	Cleveland Office
County:	Cuyahoga
Presiding Judge:	James S. Gallas
Presiding Judge:	Lesley Wells
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
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
May 15, 2009	Filing 14 Memorandum of Opinion and Order that: The Court has performed a de novo review of the record and affirms the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as it pertains to the "unreasonable application" pursuant to 2254 (d) (1) . The Court reaches beyond the Report and Recommendation to deny the petition's claim that the state appellate court's decision was contrary to decisons of the Supreme Court of the United States and to, further, deny the petitioner's claim that the state appellate court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, pursuant to 2254 (d) (2). This matter is dismissed in its entirety without a Certificate of Appealability. (Related doc 11 ). Signed by Judge Lesley Wells on 5/14/2009. (B,B)
November 6, 2008	Filing 11 Report and Recommendation that petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) be denied and dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas on 11/6/2008. (S,S)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 15, 2009

Filing 14 Memorandum of Opinion and Order that: The Court has performed a de novo review of the record and affirms the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation as it pertains to the "unreasonable application" pursuant to 2254 (d) (1) . The Court reaches beyond the Report and Recommendation to deny the petition's claim that the state appellate court's decision was contrary to decisons of the Supreme Court of the United States and to, further, deny the petitioner's claim that the state appellate court's decision was based on an unreasonable determination of the facts, pursuant to 2254 (d) (2). This matter is dismissed in its entirety without a Certificate of Appealability. (Related doc 11 ). Signed by Judge Lesley Wells on 5/14/2009. (B,B)

November 6, 2008

Filing 11 Report and Recommendation that petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) be denied and dismissed. Signed by Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas on 11/6/2008. (S,S)

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 Ohio Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Waldron v. Voorhies
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Douglas Waldron
Represented By:	Sarah M. Schregardus
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: Edwin C. Voorhies, Jr.
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?