UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7214
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff - Appellee,
versus
ALLEN RAY JOHNSON,
Defendant - Appellant.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CR-01-167)
Submitted: December 8, 2004 Decided: January 4, 2005
Before WILLIAMS, MICHAEL, and MOTZ, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Allen Ray Johnson, Appellant Pro Se. Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr.,
Assistant United States Attorney, Raleigh, North Carolina, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).
PER CURIAM:
Allen Ray Johnson appeals the district court’s order
dismissing his petition filed under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000) for
lack of jurisdiction and denying his motion to recuse the district
court judge.* With regard to the denial of § 2241 relief, we find
that the law-of-the-case doctrine precluded Johnson from
relitigating issues adjudicated in a prior appeal, United States v.
Johnson, No. 03-7128 (4th Cir. Nov. 4, 2003) (unpublished). See
United States v. Aramony, 166 F.3d 655, 661 (4th Cir. 1999)
(discussing doctrine and exceptions thereto); see also S. Atl. Ltd.
P’ship of Tenn. v. Riese, 356 F.3d 576, 583 (4th Cir. 2004)
(discussing mandate rule). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of
the district court’s order on that basis.
Turning to the district court’s denial of Johnson’s
motion to recuse, we have reviewed the record and find no
reversible error. See Liteky v. United States, 510 U.S. 540, 555
(1994); United States v. DeTemple, 162 F.3d 279, 286 (4th Cir.
1998). Accordingly, we affirm this portion of the order for the
reasons stated by the district court. See United States v.
*
In his informal brief filed in this court, Johnson appeals
the district court’s order denying his objections as moot. See
Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244, 245 (1992) (holding that document
filed within appeal period and containing information required by
Fed. R. App. P. 3(c) is functional equivalent of notice of appeal).
However, Johnson fails to challenge the ground on which the
district court relied to deny the objections and has therefore
waived appellate review. 4th Cir. R. 34(b) (“This Court will limit
its review to the issues raised in the informal brief.”).
- 2 -
Johnson, No. CR-01-167 (E.D.N.C. filed June 30, 2004 & entered
July 2, 2004). We dispense with oral argument because the facts
and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials
before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED
- 3 -