Romero v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Justia Dockets & Filings Sixth Circuit Ohio Southern District Romero v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Romero v. Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution

Petitioner:	Francisco Romero
Respondent:	Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution
Case Number:	2:2016cv00600
Filed:	June 24, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office:	Columbus Office
County:	FRANKLIN
Presiding Judge:	James L. Graham
Presiding Judge:	Kimberly A. Jolson
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
March 9, 2017	Filing 21 ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 in that the 8 Motion to Dismiss filed by Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution is GRANTED and Petitioner's Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 3/9/17. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
January 23, 2017	Filing 17 ORDER and REPORT & RECOMMENDATION re 8 MOTION to Dismiss Habeas Petition filed by Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution in that it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, and that this action be DISMIS SED. Petitioner's Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 2/6/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 1/23/17. (sem)(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

March 9, 2017

Filing 21 ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 17 in that the 8 Motion to Dismiss filed by Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution is GRANTED and Petitioner's Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED.. Signed by Judge James L. Graham on 3/9/17. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)

January 23, 2017

Filing 17 ORDER and REPORT & RECOMMENDATION re 8 MOTION to Dismiss Habeas Petition filed by Warden Chillicothe Correctional Institution in that it is RECOMMENDED that Respondent's Motion to Dismiss be GRANTED, and that this action be DISMIS SED. Petitioner's Motion to Strike the Motion to Dismiss is DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 2/6/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 1/23/17. (sem)(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: Romero 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: Francisco Romero
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
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?