Joseph Griffith v. US
UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999643306-2] Originating case number: 3:14-cv-00047-REP-RCY. Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. . Mailed to: J. Griffith. [15-7139]
Pg: 1 of 2
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
Petitioner - Appellant,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at
Richmond. Robert E. Payne, Senior District Judge. (3:14-cv-00047-REP-RCY)
Submitted: May 11, 2017
Decided: May 30, 2017
Before NIEMEYER, KING, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Joseph Griffith, Appellant Pro Se. Christopher John Catizone, OFFICE OF THE
UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Alexandria, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
Pg: 2 of 2
Joseph Griffith appeals the district court’s order accepting the magistrate judge’s
report and recommendation and dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition for lack
of jurisdiction. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the Appellant’s
brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Griffith’s informal brief does not challenge the
basis for the district court’s disposition, Griffith has forfeited appellate review of the
court’s order. See Williams v. Giant Food Inc., 370 F.3d 423, 430 n.4 (4th Cir. 2004).
Moreover, the district court correctly concluded that Griffith’s challenge was not properly
brought in a § 2241 petition. See In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000).
Accordingly, we grant Griffith’s motion to proceed in forma pauperis and affirm the
district court’s judgment. 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.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?