Davis v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
| Von Clark Davis |
| Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution |
| 2:2016cv00495 |
| June 3, 2016 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Columbus Office |
| ROSS |
| Susan J. Dlott |
| Michael R. Merz |
| Death Penalty |
| 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
64
ORDER ADOPTING IN PART REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 51 Report and Recommendations and Denying Petition for Habeas Corpus. This case is Terminated upon the docket of this Court. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 3/29/2021. (wam)
|
|
Filing
51
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - For the foregoing reasons, the Magistrate Judge recommends that Daviss Petition (ECF No. 6 ) be DISMISSED, and that judgment should be entered in favor of the Warden and against Davis. The undersigned concludes that no r easonable jurist would find that Davis has made asubstantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right, 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2), or would disagree with this conclusion with respect to any of the claims, and recommends that Petitioner be den ied a certificate of appealability and that this Court certify to the Sixth Circuit that any appeal would be objectively frivolous and therefore should not be permitted to proceed in forma pauperis. Objections to R&R due by 6/30/2020. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 6/16/2020. (kma)
|
|
Filing
49
DECISION AND ORDER OVERRULING 44 Appeal from Magistrate Judge decision denying discovery. Signed by Judge Susan J. Dlott on 1/28/19. (wam)
|
|
Filing
41
DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION FOR DISCOVERY - The Court DENIES Davis's Motion for Leave to Conduct Discovery (ECF No. 38). Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 11/2/2018. (kpf)
|
|
Filing
37
DECISION AND ORDER - The Magistrate Judge finds there is no good cause to delay Petitioner's Motion for Discovery ninety days when the case has already been pending more than two years. Any motion by Petitioner for discovery must be filed not later than August 15, 2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 7/18/2018. (kpf)
|
|
Filing
35
ORDER FOR REPORT ON SCHEDULING MATTERS - It is hereby ORDERED that counsel for the parties confer and provide the Court a status report, not later than July 16, 2018, noting their respective positions on any additional filings needed or whether the case is now ripe. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 7/2/2018. (kpf)
|
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: Davis v. Warden Chillicothe 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: Von Clark Davis | |
| Represented By: | Erin Gallagher Barnhart |
| Represented By: | Laurence E Komp |
| 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 Chillicothe Correctional Institution | |
| Represented By: | Stephen E. Maher |
| 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.
