Speights v. Crosby

Eleventh Circuit

Speights v. Crosby

171 F. App'x 330

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedMarch 20, 2006

DocketNo. 04-16434; D.C. Docket No. 02-00002-CV-5-LAC-EMT

StatusPublished

This text of 171 F. App'x 330 (Speights v. Crosby) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Speights v. Crosby, 171 F. App'x 330 (11th Cir. 2006).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Spencer L. Speights (“Speights”), a Florida prisoner serving an enhanced life sentence for robbery with a firearm, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion for entry of judgment as to a motion for summary judgment he had filed as part of his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because the record demonstrates that the district court entered final judgment as to Speights’s habeas petition, we conclude that the district court properly denied Speights’s motion for entry of judgment as unnecessary since the claims as addressed were rendered moot by the earlier final judgment on the habeas petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Speights’s pro se motion for entry of judgment as to a motion for summary judgment that he had filed as part of his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Appellant Spencer L. Speights (“Speights”), a Florida prisoner serving an enhanced life sentence for robbery with a firearm, appeals pro se the district court’s denial of his motion for entry of judgment as to a motion for summary judgment he had filed as part of his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. Because the record demonstrates that the district court entered final judgment as to Speights’s habeas petition, we conclude that the district court properly denied Speights’s motion for entry of judgment as unnecessary since the claims as addressed were rendered moot by the earlier final judgment on the habeas petition. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order denying Speights’s pro se motion for entry of judgment as to a motion for summary judgment that he had filed as part of his petition for writ of habeas corpus brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2254.

AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

171 F. App'x 330, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/speights-v-crosby-ca11-2006.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack