Grubb v. Wilson

Grubb v. Wilson

Petitioner:	Robert Wayne Grubb
Respondent:	Eric D. Wilson
Case Number:	2:2015cv00355
Filed:	August 7, 2015
Court:	US District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia
Office:	Norfolk Office
County:	Petersburg City
Presiding Judge:	Lawrence R. Leonard
Presiding Judge:	Rebecca Beach Smith
Nature of Suit:	General
Cause of Action:	28 U.S.C. § 2241
Jury Demanded By:	None

Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed	Document Text
April 25, 2016	Filing 10 ORDER. The Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on March 9, 2016 in its entirety as the Court's own opinion. It is therefore, ORDERED that the Petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and PETITIONE R IS ADVISED that his claim for relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) does apply retroactively, see Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418, _ U.S. _ (April 18, 2016) (slip op.) (holding that the Court's decision in Johnson was a new substantive rule of law that applies retroactively in cases on collateral review), and that Petitioner therefore must file a § 2255 petition in the district in which he was sentenced, delineating his prayer for relief pursuant to Johns on before the one year statute of limitations expires on June 26, 2016 adopting Report and Recommendations re 9 Report and Recommendations. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order and the Application for Second or Successive Relief to the Petitioner and counsel of record for the Respondent. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 4/22/2016. Copies mailed 4/25/2016. (jmey, )

Date Filed

Document Text

April 25, 2016

Filing 10 ORDER. The Court ADOPTS and APPROVES the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation filed on March 9, 2016 in its entirety as the Court's own opinion. It is therefore, ORDERED that the Petition be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and PETITIONE R IS ADVISED that his claim for relief under Johnson v. United States, 135 S.Ct. 2551 (2015) does apply retroactively, see Welch v. United States, No. 15-6418, _ U.S. _ (April 18, 2016) (slip op.) (holding that the Court's decision in Johnson was a new substantive rule of law that applies retroactively in cases on collateral review), and that Petitioner therefore must file a § 2255 petition in the district in which he was sentenced, delineating his prayer for relief pursuant to Johns on before the one year statute of limitations expires on June 26, 2016 adopting Report and Recommendations re 9 Report and Recommendations. The Clerk is DIRECTED to forward a copy of this Order and the Application for Second or Successive Relief to the Petitioner and counsel of record for the Respondent. Signed by Chief District Judge Rebecca Beach Smith on 4/22/2016. Copies mailed 4/25/2016. (jmey, )

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Virginia Eastern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Grubb v. Wilson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Petitioner: Robert Wayne Grubb
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]
Respondent: Eric D. Wilson
Search News	[ Google News \| Marketwatch \| Wall Street Journal \| Financial Times \| New York Times ]
Search Finance	[ Google Finance \| Yahoo Finance \| Hoovers \| SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web	[ Unicourt \| Justia Dockets \| Legal Web \| Google \| Bing \| Yahoo \| Ask ]

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?