Case Name: David CARROLL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.G. COMPTON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-06-30
Citations: 101 F. App'x 898
Docket Number: No. 04-6234
Parties: David CARROLL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.G. COMPTON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 101
Pages: 898–899

Head Matter:
David CARROLL, Petitioner-Appellant, v. B.G. COMPTON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 04-6234.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 24, 2004.
Decided: June 30, 2004.
David Carroll, Appellant pro se.
Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Carroll, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's orders denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000), and his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 59(e). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Carroll is not entitled to proceed under § 2241 because 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) provides an effective and adequate remedy for' his claims, see In re Vial, 115 F.3d 1192, 1194 n. 5 (4th Cir.1997) (procedural bar from filing § 2255 motion does not render § 2255 remedy inadequate or ineffective), and we find no abuse of the district court's discretion in its denial of Carroll's Rule 59(e) motion. See Temkin v. Frederick County Comm'rs, 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we affirm both orders. 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