GRIFFIN-EL v. DIGUGLIELMO et al
K. KABASHA GRIFFIN-EL |
DAVID DIGUGLIELMO, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
2:2008cv01018 |
July 21, 2008 |
US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
XX US, Outside State |
Amy Reynolds Hay |
Amy Reynolds Hay |
None |
Federal Question |
28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 21 ORDER adopting 20 Report and Recommendations of Magistrate Judge Hay as the opinion of the Court; that the habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is dismissed as time barred or, in the alternative, as being meritless; that a certif icate of appealability is denied; that, pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, if the parties desire to appeal from this Order they must do so within thirty (30) days by filing a notice of appeal as provided in Rule 3, Fed. R. App. P. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 12/1/09. (jg) Modified on 12/2/2009 to correct typo. (ksa) |
Filing 20 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by K. KABASHA GRIFFIN-EL pursuant to 28 U.S.C. Section 2254 be dismissed as time barred or, in the alternative, as being meritless and that a certificate of appealability be denied. Objections to R&R due by 11/30/2009. Signed by Chief U.S. Magistrate Judge Amy Reynolds Hay on 11/12/2009. (dgg) |
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 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.