Bradley v. Cartledge
Petitioner: Tyrone Tony Bradley
Respondent: Leroy Cartledge
Case Number: 4:2008cv00903
Filed: March 17, 2008
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: McCormick
Presiding Judge: David C Norton
Presiding Judge: Thomas E Rogers
Nature of Suit: None
Cause of Action: Federal Question
Jury Demanded By: 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:

Date Filed Document Text
March 25, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 37 Order to Vacate 30 Summary Judgment, 29 Order on Motion for Summary Judgment, Order on Report and Recommendation, and granting 32 MOTION for Extension of Time to File Response/Reply. Objections shall be due April 30, 2009. Signed by Chief Judge David C Norton on 3/25/09. (swel, )
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 this case: Bradley v. Cartledge
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Tyrone Tony Bradley
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 ]
Respondent: Leroy Cartledge
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.


Why Is My Information Online?