Case Name: Jackie Victor ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2018-03-07
Citations: 714 F. App'x 256
Docket Number: No. 17-7229
Parties: Jackie Victor ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 714
Pages: 256–256

Head Matter:
Jackie Victor ADAMS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Eric D. WILSON, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 17-7229
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: February 26, 2018
Decided: March 7, 2018
Jackie Victor Adams, Appellant Pro Se. William Buchanan Jackson, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellee.
Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, HARRIS, Circuit Judge, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge.

Opinion:
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM
Jackie Victor Adams, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court's order accepting the magistrate judge's recommendation to dismiss with prejudice Adams' 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition in which Adams sought to challenge his armed career criminal designation. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Adams has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). As such, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of Adams' petition. Rice, 617 F.3d at 807. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, modify the district court's judgment to reflect that the dismissal of Adams' petition is without prejudice, and affirm the district court's judgment as modified. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner's Ass'n v. Open-Band at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). 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 AS MODIFIED