Albert v. Tamez
Petitioner: Brian Joseph Albert
Respondent: Rebecca Tamez
Case Number: 4:2011cv00627
Filed: September 8, 2011
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of Texas
Office: Fort Worth Office
County: Tarrant
Presiding Judge: Jeffrey L Cureton
Presiding Judge: Terry R Means
Nature of Suit: General
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241
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
May 24, 2012 Opinion or Order Filing 19 ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS adopting 18 Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations... Albert's petition for writ of habeas corpus under 28 USC 2241 is DENIED. See Order for further specifics. (Ordered by Judge Terry R Means on 5/24/2012) (krg)
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: Albert v. Tamez
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Petitioner: Brian Joseph Albert
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: Rebecca Tamez
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?