Seay v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility
| Ernest Seay |
| Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility |
| 1:2010cv00828 |
| November 23, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Cincinnati Office |
| HAMILTON |
| S Arthur Spiegel |
| J. Gregory Wehrman |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| 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
37
SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - It is respectfully recommended that the Petition herein should be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of app ealability and the Court should certify to the Sixth Circuit that an appeal would not be taken in objective good faith and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 2/8/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 1/22/2013. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
32
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge again recommends that the Petition herein be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, it is again recommended that Petitioner be denied a certificate of appealability and that the Court certify any appeal would not be taken in objective good faith. Objections to R&R due by 12/3/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 11/13/2012. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
27
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Ernest Seay. Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and the Court should certify to the Court of Appeals that any appeal would be objectively frivolous. Objections to R&R due by 10/15/2012. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael J Newman on 9/28/2012. (gh1)
|
|
Filing
25
ORDER VACATING STAY AND ORDERING COMPLETION OF THE RECORD - It is ordered that Respondent file not later than August 20, 2012, a supplemental return of writ with copies of the state court record generated in this matter since the original Return was filed. Petitioner may file a supplemental reply not later than twenty-one days after the supplemental return is filed. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R Merz on 8/3/2012. (kpf1)
|
|
Filing
21
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 10 Report and Recommendation, denying 9 Respondent's Motion to Dismiss. Signed by Judge S Arthur Spiegel on 10/11/2011. (km1) (Additional attachment(s) added on 10/11/2011: # 1 Certified Mail Receipt) (km1).
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Seay v. Warden, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Ernest Seay | |
| 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, Southern Ohio Correctional Facility | |
| 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.
