Case Name: William Raymond TAYLOR, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Warden, Petersburg Federal Correctional Complex, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-08
Citations: 179 F. App'x 188
Docket Number: No. 06-6129
Parties: William Raymond TAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Warden, Petersburg Federal Correctional Complex, Respondent—Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 179
Pages: 188–189

Head Matter:
William Raymond TAYLOR, Petitioner—Appellant, v. Vanessa P. ADAMS, Warden, Petersburg Federal Correctional Complex, Respondent—Appellee.
No. 06-6129.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 27, 2006.
Decided May 8, 2006.
William Raymond Taylor, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
William R. Taylor, 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. Taylor 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 Taylor's Rule 59(e) motion. See Temkin v. Frederick County Comm'rs, 945 F.2d 716, 724 (4th Cir.1991). Accordingly, we grant Taylor's motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm. 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 construed the § 2241 petition as a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and dismissed it as successive. Because Taylor clearly intended his petition as one under § 2241, we decline to consider the case under § 2255.