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

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)

09-2538 - Hillman et al v. Beightler

Download Files


Document in Context
09-2538 - Hillman et al v. Beightler
April 19, 2010
PDF | More
vided a procedural mechanism in the abstract through which petitioner could raise a Fourth Amendment claim; and petitioners' presentation of the claim was not in fact frustrated because of a failure of that mechanism. See Stone v. Powell, 428 U.S. 465, 96 S.Ct. 3037, 49 L.Ed.2d 1067 (1976). There has been no demonstrated need for an evidentiary hearing, and it is therefore recommended that this application for habeas corpus be denied and Respondent's motion to dismiss be granted. (See ECF # 1, 6). Objections to R&R due by 5/3/2010. Magistrate Judge James S. Gallas on 4/19/2010. (W,G) Modified text on 4/20/2010 (B,B).Report and Recommendation that re 1 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (2254) filed by Derrick Hillman and Dallas Hillman be denied. Respondent Margaret Beightler's motion to dismiss should be granted because: the State of Ohio has pro
May 26, 2010
PDF | More
Memorandum and Order For the reasons stated in the Order, this Court Adopts the R&R (Doc. 9), Grants the Respondent's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 6), and Denies the Hillmans' petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. ยง 2254 (Doc 1). Accordingly, the Hillmans' case is Dismissed. The court certifies, pursuant to 28 USC 1915(a)(3), that an appeal from this decision could not be taken in good faith, and that there is no basis on which to issue a certificate of appealability. Signed by Judge Kathleen M. O'Malley on 5/26/2010. (K,K) Modified text on 5/27/2010 (B,B).