Luczak v. Coakley

Luczak v. Coakley

Petitioner:	Casey Luczak
Respondent:	Joe Coakley
Case Number:	5:2016cv00189
Filed:	December 21, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Office:	Wheeling Office
County:	Preston
Presiding Judge:	Michael John Aloi
Presiding Judge:	Frederick P. Stamp
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241
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
September 10, 2018	Filing 53 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 45 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, OVERRULING 48 PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING AS MOOT 49 PETITIONERS MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND 51 MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING. The respondents motions to dismiss or for summary judgment 15 and 26 are GRANTED and the 1 petitioners petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 9 amended petition are DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further, [23 ] petitioners motion to compel, 34 omnibus motion, 36 motion for appointment of counsel, and 37 combined motion are DENIED AS MOOT. It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Co urt. Should the petitioner choose to appeal, he is ADVISED that he must file a notice of appeal within 60 days after the date of the entry of this order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 9/10/2018. (copy to Pro Se Petitioner via CM,rrr; copy to counsel via CM/ECF) (nmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/10/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (nmm).

Date Filed

Document Text

September 10, 2018

Filing 53 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 45 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE, OVERRULING 48 PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS, AND DENYING AS MOOT 49 PETITIONERS MOTION FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND 51 MOTION FOR EXPEDITED RULING. The respondents motions to dismiss or for summary judgment 15 and 26 are GRANTED and the 1 petitioners petition for habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 and 9 amended petition are DENIED and DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. Further, [23 ] petitioners motion to compel, 34 omnibus motion, 36 motion for appointment of counsel, and 37 combined motion are DENIED AS MOOT. It is further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Co urt. Should the petitioner choose to appeal, he is ADVISED that he must file a notice of appeal within 60 days after the date of the entry of this order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 9/10/2018. (copy to Pro Se Petitioner via CM,rrr; copy to counsel via CM/ECF) (nmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/10/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (nmm).

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: Luczak v. Coakley
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Casey Luczak
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: Joe Coakley
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?