Court Opinion

ID: 9962863
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-23 21:01:08.375133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:19:55.313951
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-7208      Doc: 8         Filed: 04/22/2024    Pg: 1 of 3

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-7208

        CHARLES DUNCAN PIPPINS,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN RAY,

                             Respondent - Appellee.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:23-cv-00123-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: April 18, 2024                                           Decided: April 22, 2024

        Before WILKINSON, NIEMEYER, and THACKER, Circuit Judges.

        Affirmed in part and affirmed as modified in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Charles Duncan Pippins, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7208      Doc: 8        Filed: 04/22/2024     Pg: 2 of 3

        PER CURIAM:

               Charles Duncan Pippins, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order

        dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, as amended, in which Pippins sought to challenge

        his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) and raised separate claims

        challenging a prison disciplinary proceeding. We conclude that the district court correctly

        dismissed Pippins’ challenges to his sentence pursuant to Jones v. Hendrix, 599 U.S. 465,

        471, 477-80 (2023), which precludes him from raising such claims in a § 2241 petition.

        But because the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider those claims, see Rice v.

        Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807-08 (4th Cir. 2010), we modify this portion of the court’s order

        to reflect that the dismissal is without prejudice and affirm as modified, see 28 U.S.C.

        § 2106; Ali v. Hogan, 26 F.4th 587, 600 (4th Cir. 2022) (recognizing that dismissal based

        on “defect in subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be one without prejudice” (internal

        quotation marks omitted)). Next, we conclude that Pippins has forfeited appellate review

        of the portion of the district court’s order dismissing his claims related to the prison

        disciplinary proceeding because he does not challenge that decision in his informal brief.

        See 4th Cir. R 34(b); Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal

        brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues

        preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm that portion of the court’s order.

        Pippins v. Ray, No. 5:23-cv-00123-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. Nov. 21, 2023).

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-7208     Doc: 8       Filed: 04/22/2024     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 IN PART,
                                                           AFFIRMED AS MODIFIED IN PART

                                                  3