From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Jamison v. Miller

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Feb 27, 2006
No. CIV-06-48-C (W.D. Okla. Feb. 27, 2006)

Summary

In Miller v. Jamison, 26 N. J. Eq. 404 (reversed on the facts, 27 N. J. Eq. 586), Chancellor Runyon set aside absolutely a fraudulent conveyance at the instance of a creditor purchaser at an auditor's sale.

Summary of this case from Bourgeois v. Risley Real Estate Co.

Opinion

No. CIV-06-48-C.

February 27, 2006


ORDER


This matter is before the Court on the Report and Recommendation entered by the United States Magistrate Judge on January 18, 2006. The court file reflects that no party has objected to the Report and Recommendation within the time limits prescribed; however, on January 31, 2006, Petitioner paid the $5.00 filing fee, rendering the Magistrate Judge's recommendation moot.

Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge is adopted in part. The claim is dismissed as against the Attorney General' Petitioner's request to proceed in forma pauperis is denied; but because the filing fee has now been paid, the case is once again committed to the Magistrate Judge under the initial Order of Referral.

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Summaries of

Jamison v. Miller

United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma
Feb 27, 2006
No. CIV-06-48-C (W.D. Okla. Feb. 27, 2006)

In Miller v. Jamison, 26 N. J. Eq. 404 (reversed on the facts, 27 N. J. Eq. 586), Chancellor Runyon set aside absolutely a fraudulent conveyance at the instance of a creditor purchaser at an auditor's sale.

Summary of this case from Bourgeois v. Risley Real Estate Co.
Case details for

Jamison v. Miller

Case Details

Full title:MICHAEL DEE JAMISON, Petitioner, v. WARDEN MILLER, Respondent

Court:United States District Court, W.D. Oklahoma

Date published: Feb 27, 2006

Citations

No. CIV-06-48-C (W.D. Okla. Feb. 27, 2006)

Citing Cases

Wilson v. Hill

But objection on account of his failure to do so cannot be made upon a general demurrer to the bill for want…

Sulken v. United Holding Co.

I think that objection must be made by the parties themselves. Miller v. Jamison, 24 N.J.Eq. 41. In the…