Filed: Dec. 28, 2004
Latest Update: Mar. 28, 2017
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7491 MICHAEL BLACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden - FMC, Butner, NC, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-360-5-H) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 28, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 04-7491 MICHAEL BLACK, Petitioner - Appellant, versus ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden - FMC, Butner, NC, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard, District Judge. (CA-04-360-5-H) Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 28, 2004 Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Michael ..
More
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7491
MICHAEL BLACK,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ARTHUR F. BEELER, Warden - FMC, Butner, NC,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Malcolm J. Howard,
District Judge. (CA-04-360-5-H)
Submitted: December 16, 2004 Decided: December 28, 2004
Before MICHAEL, KING, and SHEDD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Michael Black, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Michael Black appeals the district court’s order
dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) petition,
in which he challenged conditions of confinement. Because Black
may amend his complaint to proceed under Bivens v. Six Unknown
Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971),
rather than § 2241, the district court’s dismissal without
prejudice is not a final order and is not subject to appellate
review. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local Union 392,
10 F.3d 1064, 1066-67 (4th Cir. 1993). Accordingly, we dismiss
this appeal for lack of jurisdiction. We dispense with oral
argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately
presented in the materials before the court and argument would not
aid the decisional process.
DISMISSED
- 2 -