Powers v. Beightler
| Robert O. Powers |
| Maggie Beightler |
| 5:2008cv00520 |
| February 29, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Northern District of Ohio |
| Akron Office |
| Summit |
| William H. Baughman, Jr. |
| Peter C. Economus |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
43
Order Adopting Report and Recommendation (re 42 ) denying Powers's Petition, and final judgment is entered in favor of the Respondent. The court further certifies that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a)(3), an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and there is no basis upon which to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Solomon Oliver, Jr on 1/31/2011. (D,M)
|
|
Filing
38
Memorandum Opinion and Order: Petitioner Powers has three matters pending before the Court in addition to his writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254. See ECF No. 1 1 ECF Nos. 35 , 36 , and 37 . This Order resolve s all outstanding matters with the exception of Powers' petition for a writ of habeas corpus. All parties are advised that no pleadings, other than Respondent's revised answer or return of writ, shall be filed without leave of Court. Magistrate Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 2/19/2010. (S,L)
|
|
Filing
34
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The 17 Motion to Expand the Record, 19 Motion to Expand the Record and Show Cause Order, and, subsequent 25 Order, are resolved. Powers' 33 Motion Requesting Correction of the Record is denied. The Court is not persuaded that the transcripts provided are inaccurate or otherwise erroneous. Petitioner Powers' request for more time is granted. Powers' must file both his motion for reconsideration and Revised Traverse no later than 11/3 0/2009. Respondent may respond within one week of receiving a copy of the motion, should Respondent deem it necessary. Powers' withdrawal of his request for an evidentiary hearing is denied as moot, given that the Court had already denied the motion in an earlier 17 order. Magistrate Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 11/18/2009. (S,L) Modified text on 11/18/2009 (JLG).
|
|
Filing
31
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The undersigned acknowledges that Respondent has filed several transcripts that appear to be Petitioner Powers' requested Items. The dates on the transcripts, however, do not match the dates on Petitioner Po wers' requested Items. Respondent is hereby ordered to resolve all discrepancies, including the difference between the dates of Petitioner Powers' requested Items and the dates of the transcripts Respondent filed. Respondent is to make cl ear the correlation between the recent transcript filings and Petitioner Powers' requested Items. On 10/25/09, Respondent was in the process of reviewing the motion request in conjunction with the Summit County Prosecutor to determine whether Po wers['] Waiver of counsel form [Item 6] is available. ECF No 21 at 1. After reviewing the filings by Respondent, the undersigned has determined that Respondent did not file Item 6, or an explanation of why the Item was not provided. Pursuant to the 10/9/2009 Order, Respondent is hereby ordered to provide Item 6 or explain in writing why Item 6 has not been provided. Respondent must comply with the undersigned's Order by 11/11/2009. Magistrate Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 11/3/2009. (S,L) Modified text on 11/4/2009 (JLG).
|
|
Filing
29
Memorandum Opinion and Order: The Court interprets Petitioner Robert Powers' 28 pleading as a belated motion for extension of time to file his motion for reconsideration. The undersigned grants Powers' motion for extension of time . Accordingly, Powers is ordered to file his motion for reconsideration at the same time that he files his Revised Traverse. Powers is further ordered to file both the motion for reconsideration and Revised Traverse no later than 11/20/2009. If Po wers decides not to file a Revised Traverse, his motion for reconsideration is still due no later than 11/20/2009. Respondent may respond to the motion for reconsideration within one week of receiving a copy of the motion, should Respondent deem it necessary. Magistrate Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 10/27/2009. (S,L)
|
|
Filing
17
Memorandum Opinion and Order granting in part and denying in part Petitioner's Motion to Expand the Record. 14 The Motion Requesting Expansion of the Record is denied as to Items 4 and 5. Petitioner's Motion for an Evidentiary Hearing 15 is denied. A copy of this Order was sent, via U.S. mail, to the Petitioner and the Warden. Signed by Magistrate Judge Benita Y. Pearson on 03/13/2009.(M,TL)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Powers v. Beightler | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Robert O. Powers | |
| 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: Maggie Beightler | |
| 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.
