Ronald Myles, Jr. v. R. Wolfe, No. 22-6198 (4th Cir. 2022)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 22-6198 RONALD R. MYLES, JR., Petitioner - Appellant, v. WARDEN R. M. WOLFE, Respondent - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Clarksburg. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (1:21-cv-00061-JPB-JPM) Submitted: November 30, 2022 Decided: December 14, 2022 Before NIEMEYER and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge. Dismissed in part and affirmed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion. Ronald R. Myles, Jr., Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Ronald R. Myles, Jr., a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s orders dismissing his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and denying a certificate of appealability. On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th Cir. R. 34(b). Because Myles’ informal brief does not challenge the basis for the district court’s dismissal of his § 2241 petition, he has forfeited appellative review of the court’s order. See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”). Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order dismissing Myles’ § 2241 petition. Further, because a certificate of appealability is not necessary when a federal prisoner seeks to appeal the denial of a § 2241 petition, we dismiss as moot the portion of Myles’ appeal that challenges the district court’s order denying a certificate of appealability. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)(A) (providing that certificate of appealability is required in appeal from final order in a habeas corpus proceeding challenging a state, not federal, detention). 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. DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED IN PART 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.
