Case Name: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Virginia Parole Board; Warden of Sussex I State Prison, Respondents-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2011-07-05
Citations: 437 F. App'x 235
Docket Number: No. 10-7607
Parties: Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Virginia Parole Board; Warden of Sussex I State Prison, Respondents-Appellees.
Judges: Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 437
Pages: 235–235

Head Matter:
Gregory A. RICHARDSON, Petitioner-Appellant, v. VIRGINIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS; Virginia Parole Board; Warden of Sussex I State Prison, Respondents-Appellees.
No. 10-7607.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 30, 2011.
Decided: July 5, 2011.
Gregory A. Richardson, Appellant Pro Se. Richard Carson Vorhis, Senior Assistant Attorney General, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellees.
Before WILKINSON, DUNCAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
Dismissed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Gregory A. Richardson seeks to appeal the district court's order dismissing without prejudice his motions for stay and for injunctive relief, filed in his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2255 (West Supp.2010) action. The district court noted that it lacked jurisdiction to rule on Richardson's motions because he had previously filed a notice of appeal. The filing of a notice of appeal "confers jurisdiction on the court of appeals and divests the district court of its control over those aspects of the case involved in the appeal." Griggs v. Provident Consumer Disc. Co., 459 U.S. 56, 58, 103 S.Ct. 400, 74 L.Ed.2d 225 (1982). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal on the reasoning of the district court. Richardson v. Va. Dep't of Corr., No. 3:07-cv-00514-REP, 2010 WL 4068934 (E.D.Va. Oct. 15, 2010). 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.