Love v. PA State Attorney General et al
| Tyshaunt Love |
| PA State Attorney General and Marirosa Lamas |
| 1:2013cv00456 |
| February 20, 2013 |
| U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania |
| Harrisburg Office |
| Centre |
| AM |
| Sylvia H. Rambo |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
| 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
42
ORDER: In accord with the accompanying Memorandum 41 ; Pltf's mtn for reconsideration 40 is denied.Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 5/2/17. (ma)
|
|
Filing
39
ORDER: In accord with the Memorandum 38 issued this date; 1) The court adopts the report and recommendation 33 of M.J. Carlson.2) The petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 1 isdismissed as untimely.3) The clerk of court shall close this case.4) The court declines to issue a certificate of appealability for the reasons set forth in the report and recommendation and the accompanying memorandum. Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 2/21/17. (ma)
|
|
Filing
34
ORDER: 1) The report and recommendation 33 is ADOPTED.2) The petition for writ of habeas corpus is DISMISSED AS UNTIMELY and a certificate of appealability will not be issued.3) The clerk of court shall close this file.Signed by Honorable Sylvia H. Rambo on 11/7/16. (ma)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the U.S. Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
Access this case on the Pennsylvania Middle 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.
