Case Name: Charles RANDOLPH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven J. GAL, Warden, FCI Estill, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2002-09-03
Citations: 43 F. App'x 716
Docket Number: No. 01-7637
Parties: Charles RANDOLPH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven J. GAL, Warden, FCI Estill, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 43
Pages: 716–717

Head Matter:
Charles RANDOLPH, Jr., Petitioner-Appellant, v. Steven J. GAL, Warden, FCI Estill, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 01-7637.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted Aug. 13, 2002.
Decided Sept. 3, 2002.
Charles Randolph, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Before WILKINS, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM.
Charles Randolph, Jr., seeks to appeal the district court's order denying his motion filed under 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2002). We have reviewed the record and the district court's opinion accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. See Randolph v. Gal, No. CA-01-642-9-22RB (D.S.C. Aug. 80, 2001). 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.
DISMISSED.
Although Randolph brought this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), the district court correctly construed it as Randolph's second § 2255 motion.