Ratliff v. Steele

Ratliff v. Steele

Petitioner:	Fred Ratliff, Jr.
Respondent:	Jewel Steele
Case Number:	3:2012cv01238
Filed:	November 28, 2012
Court:	US District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee
Office:	Nashville Office
County:	Davidson
Presiding Judge:	Joe Brown
Presiding Judge:	Todd J. Campbell
Nature of Suit:	Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

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

Date Filed	Document Text
August 19, 2013	Filing 21 ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 19 is ADOPTED and APPROVED in its entirety. Accordingly, the Petitioner's Motion To Allow Discovery 17 is DENIED; Respondent's Motion To Dismiss 12 is GRANTED; and the Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. This Order shall constitute the judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 8/19/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)
July 19, 2013	Filing 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Because the Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and filed the petition after the statute of limitations expired, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS the COA NOT ISSUE. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900, 901 (6th Cir. 2002 Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 7/18/13. Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of this R eport and Recommendation within which to file with the District Court any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations made herein. Any party opposing shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of any objections filed regarding t his Report within which to file a response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)

Date Filed

Document Text

August 19, 2013

Filing 21 ORDER: The Report and Recommendation 19 is ADOPTED and APPROVED in its entirety. Accordingly, the Petitioner's Motion To Allow Discovery 17 is DENIED; Respondent's Motion To Dismiss 12 is GRANTED; and the Petitioner's Petition For Writ Of Habeas Corpus 1 is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. This Order shall constitute the judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 8/19/13. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(dt)

July 19, 2013

Filing 19 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION; Because the Petitioner failed to make a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional right and filed the petition after the statute of limitations expired, the Magistrate Judge RECOMMENDS the COA NOT ISSUE. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(2); Castro v. United States, 310 F.3d 900, 901 (6th Cir. 2002 Signed by Magistrate Judge Joe Brown on 7/18/13. Under Rule 72(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, any party has fourteen (14) days from receipt of this R eport and Recommendation within which to file with the District Court any written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations made herein. Any party opposing shall have fourteen (14) days from receipt of any objections filed regarding t his Report within which to file a response to said objections. Failure to file specific objections within fourteen (14) days of receipt of this Report and Recommendation may constitute a waiver of further appeal of this Recommendation. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, reh'g denied, 474 U.S. 1111 (1986).(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(la)

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 Tennessee Middle District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Ratliff v. Steele
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Jewel Steele
Represented By:	Scott C. Sutherland
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: Fred Ratliff, Jr.
Represented By:	Paul A. Justice, III
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?