Jordan v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Southern District Jordan v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution

Jordan v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution

Petitioner:	Michael Jordan
Respondent:	Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution
Case Number:	1:2016cv00559
Filed:	May 18, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Cincinnati Office
County:	WARREN
Presiding Judge:	Susan J. Dlott
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 25, 2017	Filing 14 ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, respondents motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. Petitioners petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED withprejudice. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 5/25/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
May 4, 2017	Filing 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that respondent's 10 MOTION to Dismiss be Granted, and that petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability should not issue in this matter. A ny 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 5/18/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 5/4/2017. (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

May 25, 2017

Filing 14 ORDER ADOPTING 10 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: Accordingly, respondents motion to dismiss (Doc. 10) is GRANTED. Petitioners petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §2254 (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED withprejudice. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 5/25/2017. (jlw)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

May 4, 2017

Filing 13 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that respondent's 10 MOTION to Dismiss be Granted, and that petitioner's 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be Dismissed with prejudice. A certificate of appealability should not issue in this matter. A ny 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 5/18/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Karen L. Litkovitz on 5/4/2017. (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: Jordan v. Warden, Lebanon Correctional Insititution
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Michael Jordan
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 Insititution
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?