Timothy Wallace v. Federal Bureau of Prison

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999526834-2] Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00632-JLK-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999602483]. Mailed to: appellant. [15-6088]

Appeal: 15-6088

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/16/2015

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 15-6088

TIMOTHY WALLACE,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS; UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; C.
ZYCH, Warden, U.S.P. Lee,
Respondents - Appellees.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western
District of Virginia, at Roanoke.
Jackson L. Kiser, Senior
District Judge. (7:14-cv-00632-JLK-RSB)

Submitted:

May 28, 2015

Decided:

June 16, 2015

Before NIEMEYER and FLOYD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Timothy Wallace, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 15-6088

Doc: 8

Filed: 06/16/2015

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
Timothy Wallace, a federal prisoner, appeals the district
court’s

order

petition.

denying

relief

Wallace’s

equal-protection

claims

on

his

petition
related

28

U.S.C.

asserts

to

the

(2012)

due-process

United

Commission’s refusal to grant him parole.

§ 2241

States

and

Parole

Federal prisoners may

challenge decisions of the Parole Commission by petitioning for
habeas corpus relief under § 2241.

See Marshall v. Garrison,

659 F.2d 440, 441-42 & n.2 (4th Cir. 1981).
Wallace

failed

to

exhaust

the

However, because

appropriate

administrative

remedies to appeal the Parole Commission’s decisions, see 28
C.F.R.

§§ 2.26,

relief.

2.27

Accordingly,

(2014),
we

he

grant

is

not

leave

entitled

to

to

proceed

habeas

in

forma

pauperis and affirm the district court’s denial of Wallace’s
§ 2241 petition.
facts

and

materials

legal
before

We dispense with oral argument because the
contentions

are

adequately

this

and

argument

court

presented

would

not

in

the

aid

the

decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2