Davenport v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Southern District Davenport v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

Davenport v. Warden, Warren Correctional Institution

Petitioner:	Robert Davenport
Respondent:	Warden, Warren Correctional Institution
Case Number:	1:2016cv00493
Filed:	April 23, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Cincinnati Office
County:	HAMILTON
Presiding Judge:	Timothy S. Black
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
January 4, 2017	Filing 13 DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 12 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 1/4/2017. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
November 29, 2016	Filing 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that respondent's 9 MOTION to Dismiss be Granted, and petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed with prejudice on the ground that the petition is time-barred. A certificate of appealabili ty should not issued 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 12/16/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 11/29/2016. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

Date Filed

Document Text

January 4, 2017

Filing 13 DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE (Doc. 12 ). Signed by Judge Timothy S. Black on 1/4/2017. (mr)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

November 29, 2016

Filing 12 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that respondent's 9 MOTION to Dismiss be Granted, and petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed with prejudice on the ground that the petition is time-barred. A certificate of appealabili ty should not issued 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 12/16/2016. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 11/29/2016. (art)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

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: Davenport v. Warden, Warren 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: Robert Davenport
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, Warren 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?