UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 13-7608
SETH MURDOCK,
Petitioner – Appellant,
v.
TERRY O’BRIEN, Warden - USP Hazelton,
Respondent - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern
District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey,
Chief District Judge. (2:13-cv-00044-JPB-DJJ)
Submitted: December 19, 2013 Decided: December 24, 2013
Before SHEDD, DAVIS, and FLOYD, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Seth Murdock, Appellant Pro Se. Helen Campbell Altmeyer,
Assistant United States Attorney, Wheeling, West Virginia, for
Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Seth Murdock, a former federal prisoner, appeals the
district court’s order adopting the magistrate judge’s
recommendation to deny relief on his 28 U.S.C.A. § 2241 (West
2006 & Supp. 2013) petition. In assessing this appeal, * we have
an obligation to consider our appellate jurisdiction where its
existence is reasonably in doubt. See Dickens v. Aetna Life
Ins. Co., 677 F.3d 228, 229-30 (4th Cir. 2012) (citing Mt.
Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 429 U.S. 274, 278
(1977)). Murdock’s petition and related motions for injunctive
relief sought his transfer to a Residential Reentry Center to
serve the final months of his sentence of imprisonment. They
also made certain requests regarding the location and duration
of Murdock’s prerelease placement, as well as the Bureau of
Prison’s method of determining that placement. Because Murdock
was released from federal custody subsequent to filing this
appeal, however, we conclude the appeal is moot. See Townes v.
Jarvis, 577 F.3d 543, 546 (4th Cir. 2009) (“A case is moot when
the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a
legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” (internal quotation
*
While the district court denied a certificate of
appealability, we conclude that no certificate of appealability
is necessary to entertain this appeal, given Murdock’s status as
a former federal—not state—prisoner. See 28 U.S.C. § 2253(c)(1)
(2006).
2
marks and alteration omitted)). Accordingly, we deny leave to
proceed in forma pauperis and dismiss the appeal for lack of
jurisdiction. We deny as moot Murdock’s motion for summary
disposition. 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.
DISMISSED
3