Glover v. Morgan ona Kelly

Petitioner: Laurese Glover
Respondent: Donald Morgan
Case Number: 1:2012cv00267
Filed: February 2, 2012
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office: Cleveland Office
County: Cuyahoga
Presiding Judge: Benita Y. Pearson
Presiding Judge: Greg White
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. § 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 4, 2013 Filing 23 Memorandum Opinion and Order Adopting Report and Recommendation re 20 dismissing 1 Petitioner's Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254). Judge Christopher A. Boyko on 3/4/2013. (R,D)
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: Glover v. Morgan ona Kelly
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Laurese Glover
Represented By: Carrie E. Wood
Represented By: Jennifer P. Bergeron
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: Donald Morgan
Represented By: Gene D. Park
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?