Case Name: Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David M. McCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; State of South Carolina; Jon Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-08-11
Citations: 442 F. App'x 834
Docket Number: No. 11-6328
Parties: Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David M. McCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; State of South Carolina; Jon Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 442
Pages: 834–835

Head Matter:
Julian Edward ROCHESTER, Petitioner-Appellant, v. David M. McCALL, Warden of Perry Correctional Institution; State of South Carolina; Jon Ozmint, Director of South Carolina Department of Corrections, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 11-6328.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: July 28, 2011.
Decided: Aug. 11, 2011.
Julian Edward Rochester, Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and DIAZ, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
South Carolina prisoner Julian Rochester appeals the district court's dismissal, without prejudice, of his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West 2006 & Supp.2011) petition. To the extent that Rochester contends that he is being confined beyond the expiration of his criminal sentence, his claim is subject to dismissal because Rochester has not demonstrated exhaustion of state rem edies, as required by § 2241. See Braden v. 30th Judicial Cir. Ct., 410 U.S. 484, 489-90, 93 S.Ct. 1123, 35 L.Ed.2d 443 (1973). Rochester's claims of ineffective assistance of counsel challenge the validity of his convictions and should be brought, if at all, in a 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (2006) petition, see Wilkinson v. Dotson, 544 U.S. 74, 78, 125 S.Ct. 1242, 161 L.Ed.2d 253 (2005), if Rochester obtains authorization from this court under 28 U.S.C. § 2244(b)(2) (2006) to file such a petition. Finally, Rochester's claims of denial of mail and phone privileges and beatings sound under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (2000). We therefore affirm. We deny the motions for copies of documents and to expedite consideration of the appeal. 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.