Case Name: Laura Walker BERNARD, Petitioner-Appellant v. W. Elaine CHAPMAN, Warden FMC Carswell; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2009-11-02
Citations: 351 F. App'x 929
Docket Number: No. 09-10043
Parties: Laura Walker BERNARD, Petitioner-Appellant v. W. Elaine CHAPMAN, Warden FMC Carswell; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 351
Pages: 929–930

Head Matter:
Laura Walker BERNARD, Petitioner-Appellant v. W. Elaine CHAPMAN, Warden FMC Carswell; Federal Bureau of Prisons, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 09-10043
Summary Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Nov. 2, 2009.
Laura Walker Bernard, FMC Carswell, Fort Worth, TX, for Petitioner-Appellant.
Dale Gordon Bryant, Jr., Assistant U.S. Attorney, U.S. Attorney’s Office, Amarillo, TX, for Respondent-Appellee.
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and ELROD, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Petitioner-Appellant Laura Walker Bernard appeals the judgment of the district court dismissing all of her claims against the Federal Bureau of Prisons as an improper respondent to proceedings brought pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241, and dismissing Bernard's application for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to § 2241 for lack of standing and lack of ripeness or, alternatively, for failure to exhaust administrative remedies.
We have carefully reviewed the record on appeal, including the briefs of the parties, and have considered the law applicable to the facts as related therein. Based on that review, we are convinced that the orders and rulings of the district court in this action are free of error and correct in all respects. Accordingly, for reasons set forth in that court's Memorandum Opinion and Order filed November 22, 2008, 2008 WL 5024860, the judgment appealed from by Bernard is 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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.