Kendall Alexander v. D. R. Stephens, No. 14-6051 (4th Cir. 2014)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6051 KENDELL ALEXANDER, Petitioner Appellant, v. D. R. STEPHENS, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Dever III, Chief District Judge. (5:12-hc-02146-D) Submitted: June 26, 2014 Decided: July 1, 2014 Before WILKINSON, KING, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Kendell Alexander, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Kendell petition under Alexander, 28 U.S.C. a § 2241 federal prisoner, (2012), raising due filed a process claims and challenging the loss of good-time credits as a result of a disciplinary Alexander s claims ( COA ) January on conviction. and denied 16, The a 2013. district certificate On March court of 27, rejected appealability 2013, at the earliest, Alexander filed a motion for a COA and a motion to extend the time to file an appeal, see Fed. R. App. P. 4, which the district court denied. The court also denied Alexander s Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) motion. Alexander filed a timely notice of appeal from the district court s orders denying his motions for a COA, to extend the appeal period, and for reconsideration. Because Alexander failed to challenge in his informal appellate brief the court s reasons for denying relief, he has forfeited appellate review of those orders. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (limiting review to issues raised in informal brief). Accordingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm the district court s orders. * * In his informal brief, Alexander repeats the due process claims he raised in his § 2241 petition. To the extent he seeks to appeal the district court s order denying § 2241 relief, we do not have jurisdiction to review that order. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), (a)(5). 2 We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal before contentions this court are adequately and argument presented would not in aid the the materials decisional process. AFFIRMED 3

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.