In re: Brian Schumaker

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to supplement [999708258-2]; denying Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999693954-2] Originating case number: Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999761936]. Mailed to: Brian William Schumaker. [15-2286]

Appeal: 15-2286

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-2286

In re: BRIAN WILLIAM SCHUMAKER,
Petitioner.

On Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus.

Submitted:

February 23, 2016

Decided:

February 25, 2016

Before MOTZ and GREGORY, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Petition dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Brian William Schumaker, Petitioner Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-2286

Doc: 9

Filed: 02/25/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Brian William Schumaker filed a petition for an original
writ

of

habeas

corpus

challenging

various

aspects

of

his

convictions and sentence.

This court ordinarily declines to

entertain

corpus

original

habeas

petitions

under

28

U.S.C.

§ 2241 (2012), and this case provides no reason to depart from
the general rule.
U.S.C.

§

2255

Our review reveals that Schumaker has a 28

(2012)

motion

currently

pending

in

the

United

States District Court for the Northern District of Georgia.

To

the extent Schumaker challenges the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina’s denial of relief on his 42
U.S.C.

§

1983

(2012)

complaint,

an

original

habeas

petition

filed in this court cannot serve as a substitute for a properly
filed

appeal.

Accordingly,

we

find

that

the

interests

of

justice would not be served by transferring the case to the
district

court.

See

28

U.S.C.

§ 1631

(2012).

Therefore,

although we grant Schumaker’s motion to supplement his petition,
we

deny

petition.
legal
before

leave

to

proceed

in

forma

pauperis

and

dismiss

the

We dispense with oral argument because the facts and

contentions
this

court

are

adequately

and

argument

presented

would

not

in
aid

the
the

materials
decisional

process.

PETITION DISMISSED

2