Kendell Alexander v. D. R. Stephens

UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Kendell Alexander, a federal prisoner, filed a
petition under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012), raising due process
claims and challenging the loss of good-time credits as a result
of a disciplinary conviction. The district court rejected
Alexander’s claims and denied a certificate of appealability
(“COA”) on January 16, 2013. On March 27, 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 of 3 --

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

-- 3 of 3 --