Case Name: Angelo Dewell BRANCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2005-06-21
Citations: 134 F. App'x 749
Docket Number: No. 04-10954
Parties: Angelo Dewell BRANCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 134
Pages: 749–749

Head Matter:
Angelo Dewell BRANCH, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Doug DRETKE, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Correctional Institutions Division, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-10954.
Conference Calendar.
United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit.
Decided June 21, 2005.
Angelo Dewell Branch, Texas Department of Criminal Justice Institutional Division Neal Unit, Amarillo, TX, pro se.
Before WIENER, BENAVIDES, and DENNIS, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Angelo Dewell Branch, Texas prisoner #478123, appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he challenged the constitutionality of his forced labor while incarcerated. We affirm.
Branch's contention that the district court lacked authority to deny habeas relief without first ordering the respondent to answer his petition is frivolous. A district court is required to dismiss a habeas petition prior to ordering the respondent to answer if it plainly appears that the petitioner is not entitled to relief. Rule 4 of the Rules Governing Section 2254 Cases.
Branch raises several constitutional challenges to his forced labor while imprisoned by the Texas Department of Criminal Justice; however, he has not addressed the district court's determination that such claims are challenges to the conditions of his confinement and, therefore, not cognizable in a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition. He has therefore waived its review, see Yohey v. Collins, 985 F.2d 222, 224-25 (5th Cir. 1993), and we uphold the judgment of the district court.
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Pursuant to 5th Cir. R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5th Cir. R. 47.5.4.