Taylor v. Clarke

Taylor v. Clarke

Petitioner:	Ralph Taylor, Jr.
Respondent:	Harold Clarke
Case Number:	2:2015cv00246
Filed:	June 5, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office:	Norfolk Office
County:	Sussex
Presiding Judge:	Mark S. Davis
Presiding Judge:	Douglas E. Miller
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2254
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 11, 2016	Filing 38 FINAL ORDER: The Court does hereby adopt and approve the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed July 1, 2016. It is, therefore, ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 31) is D ENIED. The Court declines to issue any certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies of Order sent as DIRECTED on 8.11.16. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 8/10/2016 and filed on 8/11/2016. (epri)
June 3, 2016	Filing 29 FINAL ORDER: The Court does hereby adopt and approve the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed April 21, 2016. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Taylor's Motion to Amend (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, Taylor' ;s Motion for Forensic Testing Experts (ECF No. 22) and Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 24) are DENIED, respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED, and Taylor's petition is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. Copies of Order sent as DIRECTED on 6.3.16. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 6/2/2016. (epri, )

Date Filed

Document Text

August 11, 2016

Filing 38 FINAL ORDER: The Court does hereby adopt and approve the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed July 1, 2016. It is, therefore, ORDERED that petitioner's Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment (ECF No. 31) is D ENIED. The Court declines to issue any certificate of appealability pursuant to Rule 22(b) of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Copies of Order sent as DIRECTED on 8.11.16. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 8/10/2016 and filed on 8/11/2016. (epri)

June 3, 2016

Filing 29 FINAL ORDER: The Court does hereby adopt and approve the findings and recommendations set forth in the Report and Recommendation filed April 21, 2016. It is, therefore, ORDERED that Taylor's Motion to Amend (ECF No. 18) is GRANTED, Taylor' ;s Motion for Forensic Testing Experts (ECF No. 22) and Motion to Vacate (ECF No. 24) are DENIED, respondent's Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 15) is GRANTED, and Taylor's petition is DENIED and DISMISSED with prejudice. Copies of Order sent as DIRECTED on 6.3.16. Signed by District Judge Mark S. Davis on 6/2/2016. (epri, )

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 Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Taylor v. Clarke
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Ralph Taylor, Jr.
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: Harold Clarke
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?