BELL v. FAYETTE COUNTY PRISON et al
| CHARLES L. BELL |
| FAYETTE COUNTY PRISON, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF FAYETTE |
| 2:2008cv01235 |
| September 5, 2008 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Habeas Corpus (General) Office |
| Fayette |
| Robert C. Mitchell |
| Robert C. Mitchell |
| None |
| Federal Question |
| 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State) |
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
7
ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mitchell; that the petition of Charles Leonard Bell for a writ of habeas corpus is dismissed, and that a certificate of appealability is denied, because reasonable jurists cound not con clude that this is a basis for an appeal; that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the F.R.App.P., if the petitioner desires to appeal from this Order, he must do so withint 30 days by filing a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 F.R.App.P. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 10/6/08. (jg)
|
|
Filing
5
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 3 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by CHARLES L. BELL recommending that the petition be dismissed and that a certificate of appealability be denied. Objections to R&R due by 10/2/2008. Signed by Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 09/15/2008. (Mitchell, Robert)
|
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.
