MURRAY v. CORBIN et al
| BRAY JIBRIL MURRAY |
| THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY, PICKINS, JOHN WETZEL, TOM CORBIN and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
| 2:2014cv01088 |
| February 21, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Philadelphia Office |
| Philadelphia |
| JAN E. DUBOIS |
| JACOB P. HART |
| 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
18
ORDER THAT THE INITIAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JACOB P. HART IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED IN PART AND REJECETED IN PART AS OUTLIENED IN THIS ORDER. THE REMAINDER OF THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED AS OUTLINED IN THIS ORDER. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE SUSTAINED IN PART AND OVERRULED IN PART. THE CASE IS REFERRED TO UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE JACOB P. HART FOR SUBMISSION OF A SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION NU NC PRO TUNC. THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE JACOB P. HART DATED 8/7/14 IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED. THE OBJECTIONS TO THE SUPPLEMENTAL REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ARE OVERRULED AND THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY FILED. SIGNED BY HONORABLE JAN E. DUBOIS ON 9/4/14. 9/5/14 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED. (jpd)
|
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 Pennsylvania Eastern 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.
