Pringle v. Sevier

Pringle v. Sevier

Plaintiff:	Roger Pringle
Defendant:	Mark R. Sevier
Case Number:	2:2018cv00955
Filed:	May 21, 2018
Court:	US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office:	Charleston Office
County:	Kanawha
Presiding Judge:	Thomas E. Johnston
Presiding Judge:	Dwane L. Tinsley
Nature of Suit:	Mandamus and Other
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 1441
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
October 4, 2018	Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Court ADOPTS the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and DENIES Petitioner's 1 Motion to Remove from State Court to Federal of Charleston, West Virginia, th e 3 Motion of Rebuttal Evidence, the 4 Motion to Transfer from State Court to Federal Court, the 5 Petition under All Writs Act, the 6 and 9 Motions to Transport and Hearing by Jury Trial and Motion for Appointment of Counsel, the 11 Moti on for Judgment on Writ of Habeas Corpus Pleadings, the 12 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings, and the 13 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings of Writ of State Habeas Corpus; while the PF&R also recommends that the Court consider imposing a prefiling i njunction in this case, the Court does so in a memorandum opinion and order entered on this same date in one of Petitioner's related cases. (See Pringle v. Zatecky, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01023, ECF No. 11 at 3.); the Clerk is directed to remove this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 10/4/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kp)

Date Filed

Document Text

October 4, 2018

Filing 16 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The Court ADOPTS the 10 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, and DENIES Petitioner's 1 Motion to Remove from State Court to Federal of Charleston, West Virginia, th e 3 Motion of Rebuttal Evidence, the 4 Motion to Transfer from State Court to Federal Court, the 5 Petition under All Writs Act, the 6 and 9 Motions to Transport and Hearing by Jury Trial and Motion for Appointment of Counsel, the 11 Moti on for Judgment on Writ of Habeas Corpus Pleadings, the 12 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings, and the 13 Motion for Judgment on Pleadings of Writ of State Habeas Corpus; while the PF&R also recommends that the Court consider imposing a prefiling i njunction in this case, the Court does so in a memorandum opinion and order entered on this same date in one of Petitioner's related cases. (See Pringle v. Zatecky, Civil Action No. 2:18-cv-01023, ECF No. 11 at 3.); the Clerk is directed to remove this action from the docket of the Court. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 10/4/2018. (cc: counsel of record; any unrepresented party) (kp)

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 Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Pringle v. Sevier
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Plaintiff: Roger Pringle
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 ]
Defendant: Mark R. Sevier
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?