Jones v. Nelsel
| James Daniel Jones |
| Kenneth Nelsel |
| 6:2020cv02910 |
| August 10, 2020 |
| US District Court for the District of South Carolina |
| Cameron McGowan Currie |
| Kevin McDonald |
| Habeas Corpus (General) |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 |
| None |
Docket Report
RSS Track this Docket
This docket was last retrieved on September 21, 2020. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.
| Document Text |
|---|
| Filing 11 ***DOCUMENT MAILED #10 Judgment, #9 Order Ruling on Report and Recommendation, placed in U.S. Mail from Greenville Clerks Office to James Daniel Jones 210933 Lee Correctional Institution F2-1237 990 Wisacky Highway Bishopville, SC 29010 (kric, ) |
| Filing 10 JUDGMENT dismissing the case without requiring the Respondent to file a return. (kric, ) |
Filing 9
ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION #7 . The court adopts and incorporates the Report and Recommendation by reference into this Order. This matter is dismissed without requiring Respondent to file a return. A Certificate of Appealability is denied. Signed by Honorable Cameron McGowan Currie on 9/21/2020. (kric, )
|
| Filing 8 ***DOCUMENT MAILED #7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re #1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by James Daniel Jones, #6 Order 2254, placed in U.S. Mail from Greenville Clerks Office to James Daniel Jones 210933 Lee Correctional Institution F2-1237 990 Wisacky Highway Bishopville, SC 29010. The order will be mailed by certified mail to the SC Attorney General and The South Carolina General Counsel. (kric, ) |
| Filing 7 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the petitioner's 2254 petition be dismissed without requiring the respondent to file an answer or return. IT IS SO RECOMMENDED. Objections to R&R due by 9/8/20. 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. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald on 8/25/20. (ctuc, ) |
|
Filing 6
ORDER authorizing service of process. Directing petitioner to notify the clerk in writing of any change of address. The respondent shall not file an answer to the petition because the petition is subject to summary dismissal. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kevin McDonald on 8/25/20. (Attachments: #1 2254 petition)(ctuc, )
|
| Filing 4 Filing fee: $ 5.00, receipt number SCX300089102 (kric, ) |
| Filing 2 TRUE DIVISION FOR TRIAL: Col. (kric, ) |
| Filing 1 PETITION for Writ of Habeas Corpus, filed by James Daniel Jones. (Attachments: #1 Memorandum, #2 Supporting Documents, #3 Cover Letter, #4 Envelope)(kric, ) |
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: Jones v. Nelsel | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: James Daniel Jones | |
| 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: Kenneth Nelsel | |
| 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.
