Bernard Weiters, Jr. v. Travis Bragg, No. 17-7244 (4th Cir. 2018)

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 17-7244 BERNARD WEITERS, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN TRAVIS BRAGG, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Florence. Henry M. Herlong, Jr., Senior District Judge. (4:17-cv-02096-HMH) Submitted: January 31, 2018 Decided: February 14, 2018 Before MOTZ and KEENAN, Circuit Judges, and SHEDD, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion. Bernard Weiters, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Robert Nicholas Bianchi, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Charleston, South Carolina, for Appellee. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Bernard Weiters, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and dismissing with prejudice Weiters’ 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Weiters has failed to satisfy his burden of demonstrating that 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (2012) is an inadequate or ineffective means of challenging the validity of his detention. See Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807 (4th Cir. 2010); United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). As such, the district court lacked jurisdiction to consider the merits of Weiters’ petition. Rice, 617 F.3d at 807. Accordingly, we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, modify the district court’s judgment to reflect that the dismissal of Weiters’ petition is without prejudice, and affirm the district court’s judgment as modified. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013). 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 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.