Court Opinion

ID: 9397985
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-05-27 21:00:39.553636+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:19:29.333534
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6067      Doc: 10          Filed: 05/26/2023    Pg: 1 of 3

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6067

        ROY DEAN PRATT,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                      v.

        R. M. WOLFE, Warden,

                             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-00194-JPB)

        Submitted: May 23, 2023                                           Decided: May 26, 2023

        Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Roy Dean Pratt, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6067       Doc: 10          Filed: 05/26/2023      Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Roy Dean Pratt, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the

        magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Pratt’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition,

        in which he sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause

        in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the court’s subsequent order denying Pratt’s motion to reconsider.

        Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions and sentence in a

        traditional writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or

        ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Here, the district court correctly determined

        that Pratt may not challenge the validity of his conviction and sentence through a § 2241

        petition, as he identified neither a qualifying substantive change in the law relevant to his

        conviction, In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), nor a retroactive change in

        the substantive law affecting his sentence, United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429

        (4th Cir. 2018).

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders, Pratt v. Wolfe, No. 5:22-cv-

        00194-JPB (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 24, 2022; Nov. 23, 2022), as modified to reflect that the

        dismissal of Pratt’s petition for lack of jurisdiction must be without prejudice, see S. Walk

        at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175,

        185 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A dismissal for lack of . . . subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be

        one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate

        and dispose of a claim on the merits.”).

                                                       2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6067         Doc: 10    Filed: 05/26/2023   Pg: 3 of 3

              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

                                                  3