William Jones v. Warden Kuma DeBoo

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Motion disposition in opinion--denying Motion to appoint/assign counsel [999823733-2]; granting Motion to proceed in forma pauperis (FRAP 24) [999808683-2] Originating case number: 5:11-cv-00120-FPS-JES Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999960333]. Mailed to: William Jones. [16-6565]

Appeal: 16-6565

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/02/2016

Pg: 1 of 2

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 16-6565

WILLIAM JONES, a/k/a William Seymour Jones,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN KUMA DEBOO,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Wheeling.
Frederick P. Stamp,
Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:11-cv-00120-FPS-JES)

Submitted:

September 29, 2016

Decided:

November 2, 2016

Before SHEDD, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

William Jones, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer, Erin
Carter Tison, Assistant United States Attorneys, Wheeling, West
Virginia, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Appeal: 16-6565

Doc: 13

Filed: 11/02/2016

Pg: 2 of 2

PER CURIAM:
William
court’s

Jones,

order

a

federal

adopting

the

prisoner,

appeals

magistrate

judge’s

the

district

reports

and

recommendations and denying Jones’ motion to dismiss, his motion
for judicial notice, and his third motion for reconsideration of
the dismissal of his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition.

We have

reviewed the record and find no reversible error, as Jones fails
to satisfy the requirements for a motion to reconsider or the
requirements set forth in In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th
Cir. 2000), for application of the savings clause of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2255(e)
proceed

(2012).
in

judgment.
We

forma

pauperis,

we

although
affirm

we

the

grant

leave

district

to

court’s

We deny Jones’ motion for the appointment of counsel.

dispense

contentions

Accordingly,

with
are

oral

argument

adequately

because

presented

in

the

facts

and

the

materials

legal
before

this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.

AFFIRMED

2