Widger v. Gundy
This text of 8 F. App'x 358 (Widger v. Gundy) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
OPINION
Petitioner-appellant Carl Enoch Widger appeals from the district court’s order denying his petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.
After carefully considering the record on appeal, the briefs of both parties, and the applicable law, and having had the benefit of oral argument, we conclude that the district court’s denial of Widger’s petition for a writ of habeas corpus was appropriate.
Because United States Magistrate Judge Joseph G. Scoville’s report and recommendation and the district court’s order adopting that report fully state the reasons why Widger’s petition should be denied, the issuance of a detailed written opinion by this Court would be unduly duplicative. Accordingly, for the reasons articulated below, we AFFIRM the order of Judge [359]*359Robert Holmes Bell of the United States District Court for the Western District of Michigan denying the petition.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
8 F. App'x 358, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/widger-v-gundy-ca6-2001.