Rose v. Cartledge
Petitioner: Alan Duane Rose
Respondent: Larry Cartledge
Case Number: 5:2017cv00153
Filed: January 17, 2017
Court: US District Court for the District of South Carolina
Office: Orangeburg Office
County: Spartanburg
Presiding Judge: Bruce Howe Hendricks
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254
Jury Demanded By: None

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
March 24, 2017 Opinion or Order Filing 15 ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION: The Court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 10 ) by reference into this order, and grants Petitioner's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 14 ). It is therefore ORDERED that this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Honorable Bruce Howe Hendricks on 3/24/2017. (mcot, )
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: Rose 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: Alan Duane Rose
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: Larry 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?