Landers v. Warden, London Correctional Institute
| Joshua Landers |
| Warden, London Correctional Institute |
| 3:2018cv00175 |
| May 21, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of Ohio |
| Dayton Office |
| ADAMS |
| Michael R. Merz |
| 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
43
DEFICIENCY ORDER - This case is before the Court on Petitioners filing of a Notice of Appeal (ECF No. 40 ) which was not accompanied by the appellate filing fee of $505.00. Pursuant to McGore v. Wrigglesworth, 114 F. 3d 601 (1997), it is here by ORDERED that Petitioner pay the filing fee of $505.00 not later than April 15, 2019, to the Clerk of this Court, OR file by that date with the Sixth Circuit a motion to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. Failure to pay the filing fee or fil e a motion to proceed in forma pauperis with supportingdocuments with the Sixth Circuit (1) may result in dismissal of the appeal for failure to prosecute and (2) will result in this Courts assessing the entire filing fee against Petitioner. If the a ppeal is dismissed for failure to prosecute, it will not be reinstated despite subsequent payment or filing ofthe in forma pauperis application. The Clerk shall certify a copy of this Order to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 3/26/19. (kma)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
37
DECISION AND ENTRY ADOPTING UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS (DOC. # 28 ) AND SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS(DOC. # 33 ); OVERRULING PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS THERETO (DOCS. ## 31 , 36 ); DISMI SSING PETITION UNDER 28 U.S.C. § 2254 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 3/3/19. (kma)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
33
SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - Conclusion Having reconsidered the case in light of Petitioners Objections, the Magistrate Judge again respectfully recommends the Petitioner be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would no t disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and the Court should 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 2/5/2019. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 1/21/2019. (srb)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
28
SUBSTITUTED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of ap pealability and the Court should 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 12/18/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 12/3/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
25
DECISION AND ORDER DENYING EXPANSION OF THE RECORD 22 . Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 11/15/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
|
Filing
11
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS - The Magistrate Judge respectfully recommends that the Petition be dismissed with prejudice. Because reasonable jurists would not disagree with this conclusion, Petitioner should be denied a certificate of appealability and the Court should 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 10/23/2018. Signed by Magistrate Judge Michael R. Merz on 10/9/2018. (kpf)(This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
|
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: Landers v. Warden, London Correctional Institute | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Joshua Landers | |
| 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, London Correctional Institute | |
| 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.
