Curtis v. Warden Correctional Reception Center

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Southern District Curtis v. Warden Correctional Reception Center

Curtis v. Warden Correctional Reception Center

Petitioner:	Richard Curtis
Respondent:	Warden Correctional Reception Center
Case Number:	1:2012cv00260
Filed:	April 2, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Cincinnati Office
County:	BROWN
Presiding Judge:	William O. Bertelsman
Presiding Judge:	Karen L. Litkovitz
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
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
May 19, 2014	Filing 24 JUDGMENT signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 5/19/14. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the objections be, and they hereby are, overruled; that the 8 Report and Recommendation be, and it hereby is, adopted as the finding of fact and conclusion s of law of this Court; that the 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 be, and it hereby is, denied with prejudice, and this matter is hereby dismissed from the docket of this court. All pending motions (Docs. 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 22) be, and they are hereby denied. (eh1)
October 4, 2013	Filing 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Richard Curtis be Denied with prejudice. A certificate of appealability should not issue in this matter. Any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith, and therefore Deny petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 10/21/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/3/2013. (art)

Date Filed

Document Text

May 19, 2014

Filing 24 JUDGMENT signed by Judge William O. Bertelsman on 5/19/14. IT IS ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the objections be, and they hereby are, overruled; that the 8 Report and Recommendation be, and it hereby is, adopted as the finding of fact and conclusion s of law of this Court; that the 1 Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2254 be, and it hereby is, denied with prejudice, and this matter is hereby dismissed from the docket of this court. All pending motions (Docs. 12, 13, 15, 17, 20, and 22) be, and they are hereby denied. (eh1)

October 4, 2013

Filing 8 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Richard Curtis be Denied with prejudice. A certificate of appealability should not issue in this matter. Any appeal of this matter would not be taken in good faith, and therefore Deny petitioner leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 10/21/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 10/3/2013. (art)

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: Curtis v. Warden Correctional Reception Center
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Richard Curtis
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 Correctional Reception Center
Represented By:	Hilda Rosenberg
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?