Sheppard v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Southern District Sheppard v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution

Sheppard v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution

Petitioner:	Thomas Sheppard
Respondent:	Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution
Case Number:	1:2008cv00298
Filed:	May 8, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Cincinnati Office
County:	HAMILTON
Presiding Judge:	Timothy S. Black
Presiding Judge:	S Arthur Spiegel
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
December 9, 2014	Filing 35 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 34 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Petitioner's pro se Motion for Relief from Judgment 32 is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for consideration under 28 USC Section 2244(b). Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 12/9/2014. (km1)(This document has been sent by the Clerks Office by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
November 20, 2014	Filing 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The instant Motion to Vacate does not qualify under Gonzalez v. Crosby, supra, but constitutes a new set of claims on which Sheppard must have certification from the Sixth Circuit. It is therefore respectfully recommended that the instant Motion be TRANSFERRED to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Objections to R&R due by 12/8/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/20/2014. (kpf1)

Date Filed

Document Text

December 9, 2014

Filing 35 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 34 Report and Recommendation in its entirety. Petitioner's pro se Motion for Relief from Judgment 32 is hereby TRANSFERRED to the United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit for consideration under 28 USC Section 2244(b). Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 12/9/2014. (km1)(This document has been sent by the Clerks Office by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

November 20, 2014

Filing 34 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The instant Motion to Vacate does not qualify under Gonzalez v. Crosby, supra, but constitutes a new set of claims on which Sheppard must have certification from the Sixth Circuit. It is therefore respectfully recommended that the instant Motion be TRANSFERRED to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals for consideration under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b). Objections to R&R due by 12/8/2014. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/20/2014. (kpf1)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Sheppard v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Thomas Sheppard
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: Warden, Lebanon Correctional Institution
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?