Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06654/USCOURTS-ca4-07-06654-0/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Charles Hayden
Appellee
Danny R. Kuhn
Appellee
Sam Samples
Appellee
James Preston Smith
Appellant
Thomas D. Stevens
Appellee
William Turner
Appellee

Document Text:

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-6654

JAMES PRESTON SMITH,

Plaintiff - Appellant,

versus

CHARLES HAYDEN, Judge; THOMAS D. STEVENS, PO;

DANNY R. KUHN, PO; SAM SAMPLES, PO; WILLIAM

TURNER, Att,

Defendants - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern

District of West Virginia, at Beckley. Thomas E. Johnston,

District Judge. (5:06-cv-00479)

Submitted: January 17, 2008 Decided: January 23, 2008

Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

James Preston Smith, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 07-6654 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/23/2008 Pg: 1 of 2
*The district court accepted the magistrate judge’s

recommendation to characterize the petitions as successive 28

U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions and to dismiss them because Smith

failed to obtain authorization from this court to file successive

§ 2255 motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). The district

court declined, however, to accept the magistrate judge’s

recommendation to dismiss Smith’s claims as time-barred.

- 2 -

PER CURIAM:

James Preston Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the

district court’s order accepting in part the recommendation of the

magistrate judge and denying relief on his consolidated 28 U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2000) petitions.* We have reviewed the record and find no

reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Smith’s motion to

proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the

district court. Smith v. Hayden, No. 5:06-cv-00479 (S.D.W. Va.

Mar. 28, 2007). 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

Appeal: 07-6654 Doc: 18 Filed: 01/23/2008 Pg: 2 of 2