Case Name: Sterling J. McKOY, II, Petitioner-Appellant v. John B. FOX, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2013-06-17
Citations: 530 F. App'x 348
Docket Number: No. 12-40647
Parties: Sterling J. McKOY, II, Petitioner-Appellant v. John B. FOX, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 530
Pages: 348–349

Head Matter:
Sterling J. McKOY, II, Petitioner-Appellant v. John B. FOX, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 12-40647
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
June 17, 2013.
Sterling J. McKoy, II, Beaumont, TX, pro se.
Michael Wayne Lockhart, Esq., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Beaumont, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before WIENER, ELROD, and GRAVES, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Sterling J. McKoy, II, federal prisoner # 19319-047, appeals from the order of the district court dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 habeas corpus action. He challenges a prison disciplinary hearing at which he was found guilty of possession of anything unauthorized and unauthorized use of the mail.
On appeal, McKoy argues that the district court should have construed his § 2241 petition as a prisoner civil rights action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), or as a challenge under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) once it determined that McKoy had failed to make a cognizable habeas corpus claim. McKoy did not raise his Bivens contention in the district court, so we will not consider it, see Wilson v. Roy, 643 F.3d 433, 435 n. 1 (5th Cir.2011), cert. denied, - U.S. -, 132 S.Ct. 1062, 181 L.Ed.2d 779 (2012), and his APA contentions, though raised in the district court, are unavailing on the merits, see Evans v. Martin, 496 Fed.Appx. 442, 444-45 & n. 1 (5th Cir.2012).
AFFIRMED.
Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.