COTTON v. COLEMAN et al
| RAKEISH COTTON |
| BRIAN COLEMAN, THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY and THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA |
| 2:2008cv01250 |
| September 9, 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
20
ORDER adopting 18 Report and Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Mitchell as the opinion of this Court; that the petition for a writ of habeas corpus filed by petitioner 5 is dismissed and a certificate of appealability is denied; that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure if the petitioner desires to appeal from this Order he/she 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 12/2/08. (jg)
|
|
Filing
18
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 5 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by RAKEISH COTTON recommending that petition be dismissed and that a certificate of appealability be denied. Objections to R&R due by 11/28/2008. Signed by Judge Robert C. Mitchell on 11/10/2008. (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.
