Pipes v. McBride
Case Number: 2:2005cv00058
Filed: July 25, 2005
Court: US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Office: Elkins Office
Presiding Judge: John S. Kaull
Presiding Judge: Robert E. Maxwell
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 Ptn for Writ of H/C - Stay of Execution
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
March 27, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 64 ORDER granting Respondent's 46 Motion for Summary Judgment; denying as moot Petitioner's 59 Motion for Enforcement; adopting Magistrate Kaull's 61 Report and Recommendation; Petitioner's 1 Petition is denied and dismissed with prejudice. Notice of appeal must be received within 30 days, along with $455.00, or seek leave to appeal in forma pauperis. Signed by Senior Judge Robert E. Maxwell on 3/27/09. (copy Petitioner)(cnd)
February 13, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 61 OPINION/REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS on Respondent's Motion for Summary Judgment: Recommendation to grant 46 MOTION for Summary Judgment filed by David Ballard and deny 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus filed by James Franklin Pipes. Objections to R&R due by 3/2/2009. (Certified Mail 7008 0150 0000 3882 7681) Signed by Magistrate Judge John S. Kaull on 2/12/09. (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: Pipes v. McBride
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | 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?