CERAUL v. GILMORE et al
| THOMAS CERAUL |
| ROBERT GILMORE, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF NORTHAMPTON and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
| 5:2017cv03486 |
| August 3, 2017 |
| US District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania |
| Allentown Office |
| Northampton |
| GERALD J. PAPPERT |
| 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
31
ORDERED THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED AND THE REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION IS APPROVED AND ADOPTED; PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS DENIED; THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS IS DENIED AND DISMISSED; NO CERTIFICATE OF APPEALABILITY SHALL ISSUE AND THIS CASE SHALL BE CLOSED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 2/25/19. 2/25/19 ENTERED AND COPIES MAILED TO PRO SE PETITIONER AND E-MAILED.(jpd, )
|
|
Filing
19
ORDERED THAT PETITIONER'S OBJECTIONS ARE OVERRULED IN PART; THIS CASE IS REFERRED TO THE HONORABLE MARILYN HEFFLEY FOR A REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ON THE REMAINING ISSUES OUTLINED IN THE COURTS CONTEMPORANEOUSLY FILED MEMORANDUM OPINION; PETITIONER'S MOTION FOR APPOINTMENT OF COUNSEL IS REFERRED TO MAGISTRATE JUDGE MARILYN HEFFLEY. SIGNED BY HONORABLE GERALD J. PAPPERT ON 8/1/18. 8/2/18 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.
