Lanham v. Plumley

Lanham v. Plumley

Petitioner:	Michael K Lanham
Respondent:	Marvin Plumley
Case Number:	1:2017cv00020
Filed:	February 10, 2017
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Office:	Clarksburg Office
County:	Randolph
Presiding Judge:	Michael John Aloi
Presiding Judge:	Irene M. Keeley
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
March 28, 2018	Filing 82 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DKT. NO. 69 : The Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (Dkt. No. 69 ); OVERRULES Lanhams objections (Dkt. Nos. [79;] 81 );. GRANTS the respondents motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 14 ; 64 ); DENIES as MOOT the respondents motion to dismiss the petitioners amended petition (Dkt. No. 48 ); GRANTS the petitioners motion for leave to file amendments (Dkt. No. 56 ); DENIES as MOOT the petitioners motion for new trial and f or release from custody (Dkt. No. 5 9 ); GRANTS the petitioners motion to submit new evidence(Dkt. No. 62 ); DENIES the petitioners motion to file an affidavit (Dkt.No. 70 ); GRANTS the petitioners motion to amend his objections to;the R&R (Dkt. No. 81 ); and DENIES the Amended Petition (Dkt. No. 43 ) and DISMISSESthis case WITH PREJUDICE. The Court finds that Lanham has not made the requisite showing, and DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 3/28/18. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(jss)

Date Filed

Document Text

March 28, 2018

Filing 82 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION DKT. NO. 69 : The Court ADOPTS the R&R in its entirety (Dkt. No. 69 ); OVERRULES Lanhams objections (Dkt. Nos. [79;] 81 );. GRANTS the respondents motions for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 14 ; 64 ); DENIES as MOOT the respondents motion to dismiss the petitioners amended petition (Dkt. No. 48 ); GRANTS the petitioners motion for leave to file amendments (Dkt. No. 56 ); DENIES as MOOT the petitioners motion for new trial and f or release from custody (Dkt. No. 5 9 ); GRANTS the petitioners motion to submit new evidence(Dkt. No. 62 ); DENIES the petitioners motion to file an affidavit (Dkt.No. 70 ); GRANTS the petitioners motion to amend his objections to;the R&R (Dkt. No. 81 ); and DENIES the Amended Petition (Dkt. No. 43 ) and DISMISSESthis case WITH PREJUDICE. The Court finds that Lanham has not made the requisite showing, and DENIES a certificate of appealability. Signed by Senior Judge Irene M. Keeley on 3/28/18. (Attachments: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt)(jss)

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 West Virginia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Lanham v. Plumley
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Michael K Lanham
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: Marvin Plumley
Represented By:	Robert L. Hogan
Represented By:	Shannon Frederick Kiser
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?