Davis v. Quarterman
Petitioner: Garron Paul Davis
Respondent: Nathaniel Quarterman
Case Number: 3:2008cv00510
Filed: March 24, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Dallas
Presiding Judge: Ed Kinkeade
Presiding Judge: Irma C Ramirez
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
August 7, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER ACCEPTING 13 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE. Petitioner's 17 Motion requesting Production of Documents and Tangible Things or to Enter on Land Under Rule 34 [of] Civil Procedure is DENIED. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 8/7/2009) (mfw)
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 Texas Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Davis v. Quarterman
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Garron Paul Davis
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: Nathaniel Quarterman
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?