Matthews v. Bragg
| Alec V. Matthews |
| Travis Bragg |
| 1:2019cv03074 |
| October 30, 2019 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Shiva V Hodges |
| Margaret B Seymour |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on July 9, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 12 ***DOCUMENT MAILED 11 Order placed in U.S. Mail from Columbia Clerks Office to Alec V. Matthews, 39661-018, FCI Beckley, PO Box 350, Beaver, WV 25813. (lbak) |
| Filing 11 TEXT ORDER granting #10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION. Signed by Honorable Margaret B. Seymour on 12/2/2019. (lbak) |
| Filing 10 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply as to #6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION and Notice of Change of Address by Alec V. Matthews. Response to Motion due by 12/16/2019. Add an additional 3 days only if served by mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. (Attachments: #1 Envelope) (lbak) |
| Filing 8 CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT re #5 Order - Habeas-Service-No Answer and Petition served on US Attorney General on 11/13/2019. (bgoo) |
| Filing 7 ***DOCUMENTS MAILED #5 Order - Habeas-Service-No Answer and #6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION placed in U.S. Mail from Columbia Clerks Office to Alec V. Matthews, 39661-018, FCI Bennettsville, PO Box 52020, Bennettsville, SC 29512. #5 Order - Habeas-Service-No Answer and 2241 Habeas Petition sent certified mail to The Attorney General of the United States. Article Number: 7017-1450-0001-4670-8508. (lbak, ) |
| Filing 6 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION recommending the district judge dismiss the #1 petition without requiring Respondent to file a return. Objections to R&R due by 11/20/2019. Add an additional 3 days only if served b y mail or otherwise allowed under Fed. R. Civ. P. 6 or Fed. R. Crim. P. 45. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 11/6/2019. (lbak) |
Filing 5
ORDER authorizing service of process by clerk, directing respondent not to answer and directing the petitioner to notify the clerk in writing of any change of address. Signed by Magistrate Judge Shiva V. Hodges on 11/6/2019. (Attachments: #1 2241 Habeas Petition) (lbak)
|
| Filing 3 Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number SCX300084373 (lbak) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by Alec V. Matthews. (Attachments: #1 Memo in Support, #2 Supporting Documents, #3 Letter to Bureau of Prisons requesting withdrawal of $5.00 for filing fee, #4 Envelope) (bgoo) |
Access additional case information on PACER
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 South Carolina 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
| Search for this case: Matthews v. Bragg | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Respondent: Travis Bragg | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Alec V. Matthews | |
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Finance | [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
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.
