Case Name: Raymond PERACCINY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patricia R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2006-05-16
Citations: 180 F. App'x 441
Docket Number: No. 05-7435
Parties: Raymond PERACCINY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patricia R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
Judges: Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 180
Pages: 441–441

Head Matter:
Raymond PERACCINY, Petitioner-Appellant, v. Patricia R. STANSBERRY, Warden, Respondent-Appellee.
No. 05-7435.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted April 17, 2006.
Decided May 16, 2006.
Raymond Peracciny, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.
Before LUTTIG, MICHAEL, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
. Judge Luttig was a member of the original panel but did not participate in this decision. This opinion is filed by a quorum of the panel pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 46(d).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Peracciny, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court's order denying relief on his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Peracciny v. Stansberry, No. CA-05-37-5 (E.D.N.C. June 1, 2005). 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.
. We decline to address Peracciny's challenge to the constitutionality of the Bureau of Prisons' organ transplant policy, which was not squarely raised in the district court and, in any event, is not cognizable under § 2241.