US v. Eunice Husband, No. 13-7170 (4th Cir. 2013)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 13-7170 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. EUNICE HUSBAND, Defendant - Appellant. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, Chief District Judge. (1:08-cr-00016-JPB-1; 1:12-cv-00096-JPBJES) Submitted: October 22, 2013 Decided: October 25, 2013 Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Eunice Husband, Appellant Pro Se. David Earl Godwin, Assistant United States Attorney, Clarksburg, West Virginia; Michael D. Stein, Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Eunice Husband seeks to appeal the denial of relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp. 2013) motion. The district court referred this case to a magistrate judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. § 636(b)(1)(B) (West 2006 & Supp. 2013). The magistrate judge recommended that relief be denied and advised Husband that the failure to file timely objections to this recommendation could waive appellate review of a district court order based upon the recommendation. The magistrate timely judge s filing of specific recommendation is objections necessary to to a preserve appellate review of the substance of that recommendation when the parties have noncompliance. Cir. 1985); Husband warned of the also waived Thomas v. 474 review appellate Arm, by objections after receiving proper notice. a certificate dispense of with contentions consequences of Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841, 845-46 (4th see has been are appealability oral argument adequately and presented in 140 failing (1985). to file Accordingly, we deny dismiss because U.S. the the the appeal. facts We and legal materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. DISMISSED 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.