Tito Anderson v. Justin Andrews, No. 15-7742 (4th Cir. 2018)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 15-7742 TITO LAMONT ANDERSON, Petitioner - Appellant, v. JUSTIN ANDREWS, Warden, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Louise W. Flanagan, District Judge. (5:15-hc-02061-FL) Submitted: November 17, 2017 Decided: January 8, 2018 Before GREGORY, Chief Judge, and NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Tito Lamont Anderson, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Tito Lamont Anderson, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order dismissing without prejudice his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Anderson relies on the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e) (2012) to challenge his career offender designation, but we have “not extended the reach of the savings clause to those petitioners challenging only their sentence.” United States v. Poole, 531 F.3d 263, 267 n.7 (4th Cir. 2008). As such, Anderson fails 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). We thus conclude that the district court properly dismissed without prejudice Anderson’s § 2241 petition. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. See Anderson v. Andrews, No. 5:15-hc-02061-FL (E.D.N.C. Oct. 15, 2015). We grant Anderson leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis. 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 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.