Preston v. Wilson

Preston v. Wilson

Petitioner:	Charles Preston
Respondent:	Julius Wilson
Case Number:	5:2007cv00182
Filed:	January 23, 2007
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio
Office:	Akron Office
County:	Carroll
Presiding Judge:	James S. Gallas
Presiding Judge:	Dan Aaron Polster
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
January 23, 2009	Filing 21 Memorandum Opinion and Order (As amended 1/23/2009): The Report and Recommendation is rejected in part and accepted in part. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and this case will be dismissed. (Related Doc # 14 , 19 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 1/23/2009. (P,J)
October 10, 2008	Filing 14 Report and Recommendation that following review of the petition and applicable law, Preston has not demonstrated that he is in custody pursuant to a judgment of the state court which resulted in a decision that was contrary to or involved an u nreasonable application of Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States or was the result of a decision based on an unreasonable interpretation of the facts in light of the evidence in the State court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) and (2). There has been no demonstrated need for an evidentiary hearing. It is recommended that Prestons application for habeas corpus be denied. Objections to R&R due by 10/24/2008. Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas on 10/10/2008. (W,G) Modified text on 10/14/2008 (S,He).

Date Filed

Document Text

January 23, 2009

Filing 21 Memorandum Opinion and Order (As amended 1/23/2009): The Report and Recommendation is rejected in part and accepted in part. The petition for writ of habeas corpus is denied and this case will be dismissed. (Related Doc # 14 , 19 ). Judge Sara Lioi on 1/23/2009. (P,J)

October 10, 2008

Filing 14 Report and Recommendation that following review of the petition and applicable law, Preston has not demonstrated that he is in custody pursuant to a judgment of the state court which resulted in a decision that was contrary to or involved an u nreasonable application of Federal law as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States or was the result of a decision based on an unreasonable interpretation of the facts in light of the evidence in the State court proceeding. See 28 U.S.C. §2254(d)(1) and (2). There has been no demonstrated need for an evidentiary hearing. It is recommended that Prestons application for habeas corpus be denied. Objections to R&R due by 10/24/2008. Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas on 10/10/2008. (W,G) Modified text on 10/14/2008 (S,He).

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: Preston v. Wilson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Julius Wilson
Represented By:	Thelma Thomas Price
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 ]
Petitioner: Charles Preston
Represented By:	Stephen P. Hardwick
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?