Court Opinion

ID: 9956797
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-02 21:00:58.767623+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:17:55.218736
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-6946      Doc: 10            Filed: 04/01/2024   Pg: 1 of 2

                                               UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                                 No. 22-6946

        FIDEL VILLARREAL,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        R. M. WOLFE,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00131-JPB)

        Submitted: March 28, 2024                                          Decided: April 1, 2024

        Before KING and RUSHING, Circuit Judges, and MOTZ, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Fidel Villarreal, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-6946      Doc: 10         Filed: 04/01/2024      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Fidel Villarreal, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing Villarreal’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241

        petition in which Villarreal challenged the execution of his sentence. We affirm on the

        ground that Villarreal failed to exhaust his administrative remedies, Villarreal v. Wolfe,

        No. 5:22-cv-00131-JPB (N.D.W. Va. Aug. 8, 2022), but we modify the order to reflect that

        the dismissal is without prejudice, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106; Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525,

        530-33 (4th Cir. 2010). 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

                                                     2