Jones v. Deboo
This text of 670 F. App'x 118 (Jones v. Deboo) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
William Jones, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s 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) (2012). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in for-ma pauperis, we affirm the district court’s judgment. We deny Jones’ motion for the appointment of counsel. 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
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
670 F. App'x 118, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jones-v-deboo-ca4-2016.