Elawyers Elawyers
Ohio| Change

Willard Hudson v. Eric Wilson, 12-7663 (2013)

Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit Number: 12-7663 Visitors: 41
Filed: Mar. 20, 2013
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 12-7663 WILLARD C. HUDSON, Petitioner – Appellant, v. ERIC WILSON, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Mark S. Davis, District Judge. (2:11-cv-00534-MSD-TEM) Submitted: February 28, 2013 Decided: March 20, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Willard C. Hudson, Appellant Pr
More
                            UNPUBLISHED

                  UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                      FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT


                            No. 12-7663


WILLARD C. HUDSON,

                Petitioner – Appellant,

          v.

ERIC WILSON, Warden,

                Respondent - Appellee.



Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk.    Mark S. Davis, District
Judge. (2:11-cv-00534-MSD-TEM)


Submitted:   February 28, 2013            Decided:    March 20, 2013


Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.


Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.


Willard C. Hudson, Appellant Pro Se. Mark            Anthony Exley,
Assistant United  States Attorney, Norfolk,           Virginia, for
Appellee.


Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:

              Willard     C.   Hudson,       a    federal      prisoner,       appeals    the

district court’s order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241

(West 2006 & Supp. 2012) petition.                        Because Hudson failed to

object   to    the     magistrate       judge’s     recommendations            after    being

given    proper      notice,     he    has    waived      review        of   those   claims.

United States v. Midgette, 
478 F.3d 616
, 621-22 (4th Cir. 2007).

Accordingly,      we    affirm        the    judgment     of      the    district      court.

Hudson v. Wilson, No. 2:11-cv-00534-MSD-TEM (E.D. Va. Aug. 8,

2012).     We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

legal    contentions      are     adequately        presented           in   the   materials

before   this     court    and    argument        would     not    aid       the   decisional

process.

                                                                                     AFFIRMED




                                              2

Source:  CourtListener

Can't find what you're looking for?

Post a free question on our public forum.
Ask a Question
Search for lawyers by practice areas.
Find a Lawyer