Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

08-2694 - Casey v. Hall

Download Files


Document in Context
08-2694 - Casey v. Hall
July 17, 2009
PDF | More
Memorandum and Order The motion to supplement (amend) the petition (doc. 12) is denied, because the proposed amendment would not relate back and is untimely. Moreover,the amendment would be futile as the claim is based on a violation of state law. The motions for stay and abeyance (doc. 10, 15) are denied, because the current petition is not a "mixed" petition, and the proposed amendment would be futile. The motion for an extension of time (doc. 15) to file a reply to the respondent's Return of Writ is granted, in part, for thirty (30) days. The petitioner's Traverse shall be filed on or before August 20, 2009. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh on 7/17/09.(K,K)
February 25, 2010
PDF | More
Report and Recommendation that the motion to dismiss 23 be granted without prejudice and the Motion to compel 21 be denied. Signed by Magistrate Judge Kenneth S. McHargh on 2/25/10. (R,N)
March 17, 2010
PDF | More
Opinion and Order signed by Judge James S. Gwin on 3/17/10. As set forth in this entry, the Court adopts the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, grants the petitioner's motion to dismiss the case without prejudice and denies petitioner's motion to compel. (Related Docs. 1, 21, 23, 26) (M,G)