Matthews v. Quarterman

Matthews v. Quarterman

Petitioner:	Buster J Matthews
Respondent:	Nathaniel Quarterman
Case Number:	3:2008cv01653
Filed:	September 19, 2008
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office:	Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County:	Freestone
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)

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
November 25, 2008	Filing 10 ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge dismissing the petition without prejudice. [see Order for specifics]. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 11/25/2008) (caw)
October 31, 2008	Filing 8 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE on case: The undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court DISMISS the instant action without prejudice pending review by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circui t Court of Appeals. The Court should also WARN petitioner that, if he makes further misstatements of fact to the Court or files another successive habeas petition without first obtaining leave from the Fifth Circuit, he will be subject to sanctions, up to an including monetary sanctions payable to the Court and being barred from filing any additional habeas actions in federal court without first obtaining permission from the Court. Magistrate Judge Irma C Ramirez no longer assigned to case. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma C Ramirez on 10/31/2008) (twd)

Date Filed

Document Text

November 25, 2008

Filing 10 ORDER ADOPTING 8 Findings and Recommendations of the Magistrate Judge dismissing the petition without prejudice. [see Order for specifics]. (Ordered by Judge Ed Kinkeade on 11/25/2008) (caw)

October 31, 2008

Filing 8 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE on case: The undersigned Magistrate Judge recommends that the Court DISMISS the instant action without prejudice pending review by a three-judge panel of the Fifth Circui t Court of Appeals. The Court should also WARN petitioner that, if he makes further misstatements of fact to the Court or files another successive habeas petition without first obtaining leave from the Fifth Circuit, he will be subject to sanctions, up to an including monetary sanctions payable to the Court and being barred from filing any additional habeas actions in federal court without first obtaining permission from the Court. Magistrate Judge Irma C Ramirez no longer assigned to case. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma C Ramirez on 10/31/2008) (twd)

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: Matthews 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: Buster J Matthews
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?