OPINION *

Pro se appellant Calvin Wedington appeals the District Court’s dismissal of his habeas petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241. Because the appeal fails to present a substantial question, we will summarily affirm the District Court’s judgment. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4 & I.O.P. 10.6.

Wedington, a federal prisoner, is currently serving a life sentence after pleading guilty to second-degree murder in 1982. Since 2005, he has been held in the Federal Medical Center in Rochester, Minnesota (FMC-Rochester) pursuant to a commitment order under 18 U.S.C. § 4245. See United States v. Wedington, 409 Fed.Appx. 969 (8th Cir. 2011); United States v. Wedington, 539 Fed.Appx. 698 (8th Cir. 2013). Wedington filed a habeas petition pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 in the United States District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania. The District Court dismissed the petition as meritless. This appeal ensued.

We have - jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1291. We exercise plenary review over the District Court’s legal conclusions and apply a clearly erroneous standard to its findings of fact. See Vega v. United States, 493 F.3d 310, 314 (3d Cir. 2007).

*413 As the District Court noted, it is difficult to discern Wedington’s habeas claims from his petition. Wedington appears to seek release pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 3624; the District Court lacked jurisdiction to afford such relief. A § 2241 petition is properly filed in the jurisdiction in which the prisoner is confined. Rumsfeld v. Padilla, 542 U.S. 426, 447, 124 S.Ct. 2711, 159 L.Ed.2d 513 (2004) (“Whenever a § 2241 habeas petitioner seeks to challenge his present physical custody within the United States, he should name his warden as respondent and file the petition in the district of confinement.”); Yi v. Maugans, 24 F.3d 500, 503 (3d Cir. 1994) (“A district court’s habe-as corpus jurisdiction is territorially limited and extends only to persons detained and custodial officials acting within the boundaries of that district.”). FMC-Rochester is located outside the territory of the Middle District of Pennsylvania. 1 The District Court therefore lacked jurisdiction to consider his petition. 2

Accordingly, because no “substantial question” is presented as to the dismissal of the § 2241 petition, we will summarily affirm the judgment of the District Court. See 3d Cir. LAR 27.4; 3d Cir. I.O.P. 10.6. Although the District Court did not specify, the dismissal is without prejudice. Wed-ington’s motions for appointment of counsel are denied.