Dennis A. Forbes v. WARDEN, FCI McDowell

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 25-6325
DENNIS A. FORBES,
Petitioner - Appellant,
v.
WARDEN, FCI McDowell,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of West Virginia, at
Bluefield. David A. Faber, Senior District Judge. (1:24-cv-00194)
Submitted: September 18, 2025 Decided: September 23, 2025
Before THACKER and BENJAMIN, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit
Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Dennis A. Forbes, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Dennis A. Forbes, a federal inmate, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition and related
motions, challenging the execution of his sentence and the validity of a removal order and
immigration detainer. He appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation
of the magistrate judge and denying relief.
On appeal, we confine our review to the issues raised in the informal brief. See 4th
Cir. R. 34(b). Because Forbes’s informal brief does not challenge the district court’s
determination that he failed to exhaust administrative remedies before filing his § 2241
petition and that the court lacked jurisdiction to review the immigration detainer, he has
forfeited appellate review of those issues. 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.”). We have reviewed the record and find
no reversible error in the district court’s denial of Forbes’s remaining claims. Forbes’s
claim that he is entitled to earn Federal Earned Time Credits under the First Step Act of
2018 is moot because Forbes has been released from the Bureau of Prisons and is being
held in an immigration detention facility in Pennsylvania, and any challenge to his
immigration detention must be filed in the district of confinement.
Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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 of 2 --