Hawkins v. Warden, Ross Correctional Institution
Petitioner: Dartanian Hawkins
Respondent: Warden, Ross Correctional Institution
Case Number: 2:2017cv00466
Filed: May 30, 2017
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio
Office: Columbus Office
County: ROSS
Presiding Judge: Kimberly A. Jolson
Presiding Judge: George C. Smith
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28:2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
May 31, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 18 ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 15 in that the Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. The Court DECLINES to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 5/31/18. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
April 19, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court VACATES 11 Report and Recommendation. Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and dismissing this case. Objections to R&R due by 5/3/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 4/19/2018. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
February 8, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 11 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS denying 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus and dismissing this case. Objections to R&R due by 2/22/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 2/8/2018. (ew)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
July 19, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 4 ORDER ADOPTING and AFFIRMING the 3 Order and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION in that Claim Two is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge George C. Smith on 7/19/17. (sem)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
June 2, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 3 ORDER and REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: Magistrate Judge DENIES as moot 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis and RECOMMENDS claim two of 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus be DISMISSED. Respondent is ORDERED TO SHOW CAUSE within sixt y (60) days of the date of this Order as to claim one. Petitioner may, not later than twenty-one (21) days after the answer is filed, file and serve a Traverse to the answer. Objections to R&R due by 6/16/2017. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kimberly A. Jolson on 6/2/2017. (ew)(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: Hawkins v. Warden, Ross 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: Dartanian Hawkins
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, Ross 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?