Case Name: Timothy WALLACE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; United States of America; C. Zych, Warden, U.S.P. Lee, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2015-06-16
Citations: 604 F. App'x 329
Docket Number: No. 15-6088
Parties: Timothy WALLACE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; United States of America; C. Zych, Warden, U.S.P. Lee, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 604
Pages: 329–329

Head Matter:
Timothy WALLACE, Petitioner-Appellant, v. FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; United States of America; C. Zych, Warden, U.S.P. Lee, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 15-6088.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: May 28, 2015.
Decided: June 16, 2015.
Timothy Wallace, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Timothy Wallace, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. Wallace's petition asserts due-process and equal-protection claims related to the United States Parole Commission's refusal to grant him parole. Federal prisoners may challenge decisions of the Parole Commission by petitioning for habeas corpus relief under § 2241. See Marshall v. Garrison, 659 F.2d 440, 441-42 & n. 2 (4th Cir.1981). However, because Wallace failed to exhaust the appropriate administrative remedies to appeal the Parole Commission's decisions, see 28 C.F.R. § 2.26, 2.27 (2014), he is not entitled to habeas relief. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the district court's denial of Wallace's § 2241 petition. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.