Simpson v. Quarterman
Petitioner: Mark Dalton Simpson
Respondent: Nathaniel A. Quarterman
Case Number: 5:2008cv00499
Filed: June 23, 2008
Court: US District Court for the Western District of Texas
Office: Habeas Corpus (General) Office
County: Fort Bend
Presiding Judge: Pamela A. Mathy
Presiding Judge: Xavier Rodriguez
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
June 17, 2010 Opinion or Order Filing 35 ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 27 Report and Recommendations. Petitioner's writ of habeas corpus is DENIED and this case is DISMISSED. Signed by Judge Xavier Rodriguez. (rf)
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 Western District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Simpson 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: Mark Dalton Simpson
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 A. 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?