Facts
- Aaron Mason filed for a temporary family violence ex parte protective order against Cicely Mason, which the trial court subsequently dismissed [lines="7-8"].
- Aaron Mason directly appealed the dismissal of the protective order to the Court of Appeals [lines="7"].
- Under OCGA § 5-6-35 (a) (2), parties involved in domestic relations cases must follow a discretionary appeal procedure for review [lines="10-12"].
- The trial court had ruled that compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional, as established in prior case law [lines="15-16"].
- The Court of Appeals determined Aaron Mason failed to follow the required appellate procedure [lines="19"].
Issues
- Whether Aaron Mason had the right to directly appeal the trial court's dismissal of the protective order [lines="9"].
- Whether compliance with the discretionary appeal procedure affects the jurisdiction of the appellate court [lines="15"].
Holdings
- Aaron Mason does not have the right to a direct appeal from the trial court's order, and the appeal is dismissed [lines="20"].
- Compliance with the discretionary appeals procedure is jurisdictional, and thus the failure to comply deprives the appellate court of jurisdiction [lines="19"].
OPINION
*1 Before GREGORY and RICHARDSON, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Jontavious Kyree Lyons, Appellant Pro Se. Jonathan Patrick Jones, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Roanoke, Virginia, for Appellee.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. *2 USCA4 Appeal: 23-7285 Doc: 8 Filed: 12/09/2024 Pg: 2 of 2
PER CURIAM:
Jontavious Kyree Lyons, a federal prisoner, filed a 28 U.S.C. § 2241 petition seeking to challenge his sentence by way of the savings clause in 28 U.S.C. § 2255(e). He appeals the district court’s order dismissing his § 2241 petition without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. Lyons v. Streeval , No. 7:23-cv-00035-TTC-JCH (W.D. Va. Dec. 5, 2023); see Jones v. Hendrix , 599 U.S. 465, 477-80 (2023) (holding that a petitioner cannot use a § 2241 petition to mount successive collateral challenges to federal sentence). However, we remand this matter to the district court to correct the mistaken reference to Lyons as “Reid” on page 4 of the district court’s opinion. 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 AND REMANDED
2