Wilson v. Crouch

Filing 920080625

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 07-7487 JOHN WILSON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. ROBERT P. CROUCH, JR., U.S. Attorney Western District of Virginia; JOSEPH W.H. MOTT, Assistant U.S. Attorney, Western District of Virginia; ALBERTO GONZALEZ, U.S. Attorney General; JORGE L. PASTRANA, Warden F.C.I. Miami; GEORGE BUSH, President of U.S.A., Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:07-cv-00433-jct) Submitted: June 5, 2008 Decided: June 25, 2008 Before NIEMEYER and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. John Wilson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: John Wilson appeals the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his complaint, which was construed as an action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for failure to state a claim upon which relief could be granted. See 28 U.S.C. 1915A(b)(1) (2000). In his informal brief, Wilson fails to address the district court's ruling that his action could not proceed because a favorable outcome of the lawsuit would undermine the validity of his conviction, citing Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 486-87 (1994). Therefore, Wilson has waived appellate review of that issue. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) ("The Court will limit its review to the issues raised in the informal brief."). district court's ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED -2-

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?