U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit, 2019

Casey Luczak v. Joe Coakley

Casey Luczak v. Joe Coakley
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Decided March 6, 2019

Casey Luczak v. Joe Coakley

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 18-7373

MR. CASEY LUCZAK, Petitioner - Appellant, v. MR. JOE COAKLEY, Warden, Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Wheeling. Frederick P. Stamp, Jr., Senior District Judge. (5:16-cv-00189-FPS)

Submitted: February 28, 2019 Decided: March 6, 2019

Before WILKINSON and THACKER, Circuit Judges, and TRAXLER, Senior Circuit Judge.

Affirmed as modified by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Casey Luczak, Appellant Pro Se.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Casey Luczak, a federal prisoner, appeals the district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the magistrate judge and denying relief on his 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2012) petition. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, although we grant Luczak leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Luczak v. Coakley, No. 5:16-cv-00189-FPS (N.D.W. Va. Sept. 10, 2018). However, we modify the district court’s order to clarify that its dismissal of Luczak’s challenges to his conviction and sentence is without prejudice. See S. Walk at Broadlands Homeowner’s Ass’n v. OpenBand at Broadlands, LLC, 713 F.3d 175, 185 (4th Cir. 2013); Rice v. Rivera, 617 F.3d 802, 807-08 (4th Cir. 2010). We deny Luczak’s motion to arrest judgment. 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

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.