Hodges v. Wilson

Fourth Circuit

Hodges v. Wilson

582 F. App'x 234

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

DecidedAugust 28, 2014

DocketNo. 14-6604

StatusPublished

This text of 582 F. App'x 234 (Hodges v. Wilson) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hodges v. Wilson, 582 F. App'x 234 (4th Cir. 2014).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Frederick Hodges, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. The district court initially treated Hodges’ pleading as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissed it on that basis. In the order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment, the district court held that the relief Hodges seeks is not available under § 2241. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order denying the Rule 59(e) motion. Hodges v. Wilson, No. 1:13-cv-01523-LMB-JFA (E.D.Va. Feb. 12, 2014). Hodges’ motion to place the appeal in abeyance is denied. 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.

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

PER CURIAM:

Ernest Frederick Hodges, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition and denying his Fed. R.Civ.P. 59(e) motion to alter or amend the judgment. The district court initially treated Hodges’ pleading as a successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) motion and dismissed it on that basis. In the order denying the motion to alter or amend the judgment, the district court held that the relief Hodges seeks is not available under § 2241. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court in its order denying the Rule 59(e) motion. Hodges v. Wilson, No. 1:13-cv-01523-LMB-JFA (E.D.Va. Feb. 12, 2014). Hodges’ motion to place the appeal in abeyance is denied. 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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

582 F. App'x 234, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hodges-v-wilson-ca4-2014.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack