Barfield v. Young
| Christopher Barfield |
| David Young |
| 5:2018cv00323 |
| February 16, 2018 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia |
| Beckley Office |
| Raleigh |
| Irene C. Berger |
| Dwane L. Tinsley |
| General |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 2241 |
| None |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
14
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: ADOPTING the 13 Proposed Findings and Recommendation, DENYING the Petitioner's 1 Application Under 28 U.S.C. Section 2241 for a Writ of Habeas Corpus by a Person in State or Federal Custody, and ORDERING the matter stricken. Signed by Judge Frank W. Volk on 12/12/2019. (cc: attys; any unrepresented party) (btm)
|
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
| Search for this case: Barfield v. Young | |
|---|---|
| Search News | [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ] |
| Search Web | [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ] |
| Petitioner: Christopher Barfield | |
| 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: David Young | |
| 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.
