Court Opinion

ID: 9892194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-20 21:00:40.458915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:50:02.800721
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6757      Doc: 9         Filed: 10/19/2023    Pg: 1 of 2

                                            UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 23-6757

        FRANCIS CURTIS DAVIS, a/k/a Abdul-Malik Francis As-Salafi,

                             Petitioner - Appellant,

                     v.

        WARDEN BROWN,

                             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-00173-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: October 3, 2023                                        Decided: October 19, 2023

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

        Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

        Abdul-Malik Francis As-Salafi, Appellant Pro Se.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6757      Doc: 9         Filed: 10/19/2023      Pg: 2 of 2

        PER CURIAM:

               Francis Curtis Davis, a/k/a Abdul-Malik Francis As-Salafi, a federal prisoner,

        appeals the district court’s order dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition, in which he

        challenged the execution of his sentence, for failure to exhaust alternative remedies. We

        have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. See Timms v. Johns, 627 F.3d 525,

        530-31 (4th Cir. 2010). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order, see Davis v.

        Brown, No. 5:23-cv-00173-JPB-JPM (N.D.W. Va. July 26, 2023), but we modify the

        dismissal to be without prejudice, see 28 U.S.C. § 2106; Timms, 627 F.3d at 533. We deny

        the motion for bond or release pending appeal as moot. 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