Roy Pratt v. R. Wolfe

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
• Decided: May 26, 2023
• Docket: 23-6067
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6067 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 3

UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 23-6067

ROY DEAN PRATT,

Petitioner - Appellant,

v.

R. M. WOLFE, Warden,

Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00194-JPB)

Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 26, 2023

Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Roy Dean Pratt, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. USCA4 Appeal: 23-6067 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 3

PER CURIAM:

Roy Dean Pratt, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the

magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Pratt’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition,

in which he sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause

in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the court’s subsequent order denying Pratt’s motion to reconsider.

Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions and sentence in a

traditional writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or

ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Here, the district court correctly determined

that Pratt may not challenge the validity of his conviction and sentence through a § 2241

petition, as he identified neither a qualifying substantive change in the law relevant to his

conviction, In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), nor a retroactive change in

the substantive law affecting his sentence, United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429

(4th Cir. 2018).

Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders, Pratt v. Wolfe, No. 5:22-cv-

00194-JPB (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 24, 2022; Nov. 23, 2022), as modified to reflect that the

dismissal of Pratt’s petition for lack of jurisdiction must be without prejudice, see S. Walk

at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175,

185 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A dismissal for lack of . . . subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be

one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate

and dispose of a claim on the merits.”).

2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-6067 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 3

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 AS MODIFIED