Dehner v. Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
||Richard E. Dehner
||Warden, Chillicothe Correctional Institution
||February 29, 2016
||US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
||Susan J. Dlott
||Karen L. Litkovitz
|Nature of Suit:
|Cause of Action:
||28 U.S.C. § 2254
|Jury Demanded By:
Access additional case information on PACER
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
|July 21, 2017
ORDER ADOPTING 20] REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS : Accordingly, respondents motion to dismiss (Doc. 12) is GRANTED. The petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 5) is DISMISSED with prejudice on the ground that the petition is time-barred under 28 U.S.C. §2244(d), and petitioners motion forstay and abeyance (Doc. 6) is DENIED. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 7/21/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|February 14, 2017
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that respondent's 12 MOTION to Dismiss be Granted, the 5 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed with prejudice on the ground that the petition is time-barred under 28:2244(d), and petitioner's 6 MOTION for Stay and abeyance be Denied. A certificate of appealability should not issue. 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 2/28/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 2/14/2017. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
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
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?