Barber v. Warden, Marion Correctional Institution
| Curtis L Barber |
| Warden, Marion Correctional Institution |
| 3:2011cv00060 |
| March 1, 2011 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| MONTGOMERY |
| Sharon L Ovington |
| Walter H Rice |
| General |
| 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
13
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 11 ) IN THEIR ENTIRETY; OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOC. # 12 ); DISMISSING PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS (DOC. # 1 ) WITH PREJUDICE; JUDGMENT TO ENTER IN FAVOR OF RESPONDENT AND AGAINST PETITIONER; DENYING CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY AND LEAVE TO APPEAL IN FORMA PAUPERIS; TERMINATION ENTRY. Signed by Judge Walter H Rice on 09/24/13. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
14
CLERK'S JUDGMENT with Attached Notice of Disposal. Signed on 09/24/13. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
11
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Curtis L Barber - IT IS THEREFORE RECOMMENDED THAT: 1. Petitioner Curtis L. Barbers petition for writ of habeas corpus (Doc. #1) be DENIED with prejudice in its entirety; 2. No certificate of appealability issue in conjunction with this matter; and, 3. This case be terminated on the docket of this Court. Objections to R&R due by 6/7/2013. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 05/21/13. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
9
ORDER IN RESPONSE TO PETITIONER CURTIS L. BARBER'S JUDICIAL NOTICE TO THE COURT (Doc. # 8 ) - Accordingly, Mr. Barber is ORDERED to file a copy of the changes he wishes to make to his original Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus on or before November 9, 2012. After Mr. Barber provides a copy of the specific changes he wishes to make to his original Petition, the Court will then be able to consider his motion. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 10/19/12. (pb1)
|
|
Filing
3
ORDER: 1. On or before April 21, 2011, Respondent shall file an Answer in this case conforming to the requirements of Rule 5 of the Rules Governing §2254 Cases; and 2. The Clerk of Court is directed to serve the Petition and a copy of this Order by electronic or regular mail on Respondent and the Attorney General of Ohio, c/o Assistant Attorney General Diane Mallory, Corrections Litigation, 150 E. Gay Street, 16th Floor, Columbus, Ohio 43215-6001. Signed by Magistrate Judge Sharon L Ovington on 3/7/11. (bac1)
|
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: Barber v. Warden, Marion 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: Curtis L Barber | |
| 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, Marion Correctional Institution | |
| Represented By: | Diane Duemmel Mallory |
| Represented By: | Thelma Thomas Price |
| 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.
