Bixby v. Stirling et al
Filing
78
SCHEDULING ORDER: Respondents shall answer or otherwise respond to the Petition by 60 days from April 16, 2018. Petitioner shall respond to Respondents answer thirty-five days after such answer is filed. Respondents shall have fourteen days after Petitioner's response is filed to reply. Signed by Magistrate Judge Thomas E Rogers, III on 04/11/2018. (dsto, )
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
_______________________
Steven Vernon Bixby,
)
)
Petitioner,
)
)
vs.
)
)
Bryan P. Stirling, Commissioner,
)
South Carolina Department of
)
Corrections, and Willie D. Davis,
)
Warden, Kirkland Correctional Inst.,
)
)
Respondents.
)
_________________________________________ )
C/A No.: 4:17-cv-00954-BHH-TER
Scheduling Order
Petitioner has brought this counseled capital habeas corpus matter under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and Local Civil Rule 73.02(B)(2) (D.S.C.), preliminary proceedings
in this matter have been referred to the undersigned United States Magistrate Judge. On March 27,
2018, Petitioner filed his Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus. (ECF No. 72.) On April 4, 2018,
Petitioner filed a brief in support of his petition, and requested an additional ten days to further brief
one issue. (ECF No. 72-1.) The court granted Petitioner’s request (ECF No.76) and gave Petitioner
until April 16, 2018, to supplement his brief.
Pursuant to Rules 4 and 5 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases in the United States
District Courts, the following scheduling order is established for this case:
1.
Respondents shall answer or otherwise respond to the Petition by 60 days from April
16, 2018.
2.
Petitioner shall respond to Respondents’ answer thirty-five days after such answer
is filed.
3.
Respondents shall have fourteen days after Petitioner’s response is filed to reply.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
April 11, 2018
Florence, South Carolina
s/Thomas E. Rogers, III
Thomas E. Rogers, III
United States Magistrate Judge
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?