Clark v. Wilson

Clark v. Wilson

Petitioner:	James Edward Clark
Respondent:	David R. Wilson
Case Number:	5:2016cv00179
Filed:	December 5, 2016
Court:	US District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia
Office:	Wheeling Office
County:	Preston
Presiding Judge:	James E. Seibert
Presiding Judge:	Frederick P. Stamp
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
September 19, 2018	Filing 50 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 36 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND OVERRULING 47 PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS. Accordingly, 16 respondents motion to dismiss is GRANTED, 1 petitioners petition for writ of habea s corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, and the petitioners; the petitioners pending 30 motion to file a second supplement to his petition is DENIED AS MOOT and his 49 motion to supplement his memorandum of law is DENIED as untimely. It i s further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Should the petitioner choose to appeal, he is ADVISED that he must file a notice of appeal with the Clerk of Court within 60 days afte r the date of the entry of this order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 9/19/2018. (copy to Pro Se Petitioner via CM,rrr; copy to counsel via CM/ECF) (nmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/19/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (nmm).

Date Filed

Document Text

September 19, 2018

Filing 50 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER AFFIRMING AND ADOPTING 36 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF MAGISTRATE JUDGE AND OVERRULING 47 PETITIONERS OBJECTIONS. Accordingly, 16 respondents motion to dismiss is GRANTED, 1 petitioners petition for writ of habea s corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 is DENIED, and the petitioners; the petitioners pending 30 motion to file a second supplement to his petition is DENIED AS MOOT and his 49 motion to supplement his memorandum of law is DENIED as untimely. It i s further ORDERED that this case be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE and STRICKEN from the active docket of this Court. Should the petitioner choose to appeal, he is ADVISED that he must file a notice of appeal with the Clerk of Court within 60 days afte r the date of the entry of this order. The Clerk is DIRECTED to enter judgment on this matter. Signed by Senior Judge Frederick P. Stamp, Jr. on 9/19/2018. (copy to Pro Se Petitioner via CM,rrr; copy to counsel via CM/ECF) (nmm) (Additional attachment(s) added on 9/19/2018: # 1 Certified Mail Return Receipt) (nmm).

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 West Virginia Northern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Clark 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: James Edward Clark
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: David R. 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?