SEARLESS v. COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA et al
| RONALD SEARLESS |
| COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA, MICHAEL HARLOW, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE STATE OF PENNSYLVANIA and THE DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF THE COUNTY OF ALLEGHENY |
| 2:2010cv00254 |
| February 23, 2010 |
| US District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania |
| Pittsburgh Office |
| Mercer |
| Lisa Pupo Lenihan |
| 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
21
ORDER adopting 19 Report and Recommendation; that the Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (ECF No. 1 ) is denied; that a certificate of appealability is denied; that the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 19) is adopted as the Opinion of the Court; that the Clerk of Court mark this case closed; that pursuant to Rule 4(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure, Plaintiff has thirty (30) days to file a notice of appeal as provided by Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Appeallate Procedure. Signed by Judge Nora Barry Fischer on 11/15/10. (jg)
|
|
Filing
19
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION that the 4 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by RONALD SEARLESS be denied and that a certificate of appealability be denied. Objections to R&R due by 11/12/2010. Signed by Judge Lisa Pupo Lenihan on October 22, 2010. (far)
|
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.
