Case Name: James Preston SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles HAYDEN, Judge; Thomas D. Stevens, Po; Danny R. Kuhn, Po; Sam Samples, Po; William Turner, Att, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2008-01-23
Citations: 267 F. App'x 221
Docket Number: No. 07-6654
Parties: James Preston SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles HAYDEN, Judge; Thomas D. Stevens, Po; Danny R. Kuhn, Po; Sam Samples, Po; William Turner, Att, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 267
Pages: 221–221

Head Matter:
James Preston SMITH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Charles HAYDEN, Judge; Thomas D. Stevens, Po; Danny R. Kuhn, Po; Sam Samples, Po; William Turner, Att, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 07-6654.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Jan. 17, 2008.
Decided: Jan. 23, 2008.
James Preston Smith, Appellant Pro Se.
Before TRAXLER, SHEDD, and DUNCAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James Preston Smith, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting in part the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his consolidated 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petitions. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Smith's motion to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Smith v. Hayden, No. 5:06-cv-00479 (S.D.W.Va. Mar. 28, 2007). 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.
The district court accepted the magistrate judge's recommendation to characterize the petitions as successive 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2000) motions and to dismiss them because Smith failed to obtain authorization from this court to file successive § 2255 motions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2244 (2000). The district court declined, however, to accept the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss Smith's claims as time-barred.