Roy Pratt v. R. Wolfe ( 2023 )

USCA4 Appeal: 23-6067 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 1 of 3
UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 23-6067
ROY DEAN PRATT,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
R. M. WOLFE, Warden,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00194-JPB)
Submitted: May 23, 2023 Decided: May 26, 2023
Before AGEE, WYNN, and QUATTLEBAUM, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Roy Dean Pratt, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6067 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 2 of 3
PER CURIAM:
Roy Dean Pratt, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the
magistrate judge’s recommendation and denying relief on Pratt’s 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition,
in which he sought to challenge his conviction and sentence by way of the savings clause
in 28 U.S.C. § 2255, and the court’s subsequent order denying Pratt’s motion to reconsider.
Pursuant to § 2255(e), a prisoner may challenge his convictions and sentence in a
traditional writ of habeas corpus under § 2241 if a § 2255 motion would be inadequate or
ineffective to test the legality of his detention. Here, the district court correctly determined
that Pratt may not challenge the validity of his conviction and sentence through a § 2241
petition, as he identified neither a qualifying substantive change in the law relevant to his
conviction, In re Jones, 226 F.3d 328, 333-34 (4th Cir. 2000), nor a retroactive change in
the substantive law affecting his sentence, United States v. Wheeler, 886 F.3d 415, 429
(4th Cir. 2018).
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s orders, Pratt v. Wolfe, No. 5:22-cv-
00194-JPB (N.D. W. Va. Oct. 24, 2022; Nov. 23, 2022), as modified to reflect that the
dismissal of Pratt’s petition for lack of jurisdiction must be without prejudice, see S. Walk
at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n, Inc. v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175,
185 (4th Cir. 2013) (“A dismissal for lack of . . . subject matter jurisdiction . . . must be
one without prejudice, because a court that lacks jurisdiction has no power to adjudicate
and dispose of a claim on the merits.”).
2
USCA4 Appeal: 23-6067 Doc: 10 Filed: 05/26/2023 Pg: 3 of 3
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
3