Loveless v. Oklahoma State of et al
| Chris Elroy Loveless |
| Oklahoma State of and Jason M Hicks |
| 5:2022cv00994 |
| November 17, 2022 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Oklahoma |
| Jodi W Dishman |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on March 30, 2023. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 5 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION - It is recommended the Application for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis re Doc #2 be DENIED. Objections to R&R due by 12/8/2022. This Report and Recommendation disposes of all issues referred to the undersigned Magistrate Judge in the captioned matter, and any motion pending should be deemed denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell on 11/18/2022. (cps) |
| Filing 4 ENTER ORDER REFERRING CASE to Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell. Motions referred to Gary M. Purcell. Signed by the direction of Judge Jodi W. Dishman on 11/18/22. (rr) |
| Magistrate Judge Gary M. Purcell no longer assigned to case. (cps) |
| Filing 3 PREVIOUS Cases (rr) |
| Filing 2 MOTION for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis by Chris Elroy Loveless. (Attachments: #1 Attachment 1 - Account History, #2 Envelope)(rr) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by Chris Elroy Loveless. (Attachments: #1 Envelope)(rr) |
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 Oklahoma Western 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
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.
