Crawford v. U. S. Parole Commission
Case Number: 5:2006cv00541
Filed: July 6, 2006
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia
Office: Beckley Office
Presiding Judge: Thomas E. Johnston
Nature of Suit: Habeas Corpus (General)
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (federal)
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
July 8, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 10 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: adopting the 9 Proposed Findings and Recommendations; denying Petitioner's 1 Application to Proceed in forma pauperis; dismissing as moot Petitioner's 1 Application for Writ of Habeas Corpus; directing the Clerk to remove this matter from the Court's docket. Signed by Judge Thomas E. Johnston on 7/8/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
June 16, 2009 Opinion or Order Filing 9 PROPOSED FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS recommending that the District Court DENY Petitioner's 4 Application to Proceed in Forma Pauperis, DISMISS as moot Petitioner's 4 Section 2241 Application, and remove this matter from the Court's docket. This case no longer referred to Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort. Objections to Proposed F&R due by 7/6/2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge R. Clarke VanDervort on 6/16/2009. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (slr)
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: Crawford v. U. S. Parole Commission
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?