PATTERSON v. U.S., 3:14-cv-00342-MOC. (2014)
Court: District Court, W.D. North Carolina
Number: infdco20141209952
Visitors: 12
Filed: Dec. 05, 2014
Latest Update: Dec. 05, 2014
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court on petitioner's "Traverse to Respondent's Answer" (#15), which was filed 10 days after petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration (#12). The court has considered petitioner's Traverse in light of the court's reconsideration of the substance of the Petition. The Traverse does not change the court's analysis of the viability of petitioner's claims or proposed claims. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that having co
Summary: ORDER MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge. THIS MATTER is before the court on petitioner's "Traverse to Respondent's Answer" (#15), which was filed 10 days after petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration (#12). The court has considered petitioner's Traverse in light of the court's reconsideration of the substance of the Petition. The Traverse does not change the court's analysis of the viability of petitioner's claims or proposed claims. ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that having con..
More
ORDER
MAX O. COGBURN, Jr., District Judge.
THIS MATTER is before the court on petitioner's "Traverse to Respondent's Answer" (#15), which was filed 10 days after petitioner filed his Motion for Reconsideration (#12). The court has considered petitioner's Traverse in light of the court's reconsideration of the substance of the Petition. The Traverse does not change the court's analysis of the viability of petitioner's claims or proposed claims.
ORDER
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that having considered petitioner's Traverse (#15), the court reaffirms its Order (#14).
Source: Leagle
