Clay v. Bradshaw

Clay v. Bradshaw

Petitioner:	Joshua Clay
Respondent:	Margaret Bradshaw
Case Number:	1:2009cv00204
Filed:	January 29, 2009
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office:	Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County:	Cuyahoga
Presiding Judge:	James S. Gallas
Presiding Judge:	Patricia A. Gaughan
Nature of Suit:	None
Cause of Action:	Federal Question
Jury Demanded By:	28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

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
December 11, 2009	Filing 10 Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Furthermore, for the reasons stated herein and in the Report and Recommendation, the Court certifies , pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 12/10/09. (LC,S) re 7
August 14, 2009	Filing 7 Report and Recommendation that the prisoner has not demonstrated that he was in custody pursuant to state court judgment that resulted from a decision that violated clearly established federal law or involved in an "unreasonable applicati on" of federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Further there has been no demonstrated need for an evidentiary hearing and the petition for habeas corpus relief under 28USC Section 2254 should be denied and dismissed. Objections to R&R due by 8/28/2009. Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas on 8/14/2009. (W,G)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 11, 2009

Filing 10 Memorandum of Opinion and Order: Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation is accepted. The Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus is dismissed. Furthermore, for the reasons stated herein and in the Report and Recommendation, the Court certifies , pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c); Fed.R.App.P. 22(b). Judge Patricia A. Gaughan on 12/10/09. (LC,S) re 7

August 14, 2009

Filing 7 Report and Recommendation that the prisoner has not demonstrated that he was in custody pursuant to state court judgment that resulted from a decision that violated clearly established federal law or involved in an "unreasonable applicati on" of federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States. Further there has been no demonstrated need for an evidentiary hearing and the petition for habeas corpus relief under 28USC Section 2254 should be denied and dismissed. Objections to R&R due by 8/28/2009. Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas on 8/14/2009. (W,G)

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: Clay v. Bradshaw
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Joshua Clay
Represented By:	Paul A. Mancino, 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 ]
Respondent: Margaret Bradshaw
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?