
    William L.A. CHURCH, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. OKLAHOMA CORRECTIONAL INDUSTRIES; CellFor, Inc.; State Of Oklahoma, ex rel. Oklahoma Department Of Corrections; Justin Jones, Director, DOC; Johnny Blevins, Administrator, DOC; David Parker, Warden; Charlene Bredel, Trust Fund Supervisor; Gerald David, Plant Manager; Alex Lunn, Industry Manager, Supervisor; Bob Thomlinson, Superintendent; Rick Verhines, Vice President, CellFor, Inc.; Jammie Patterson, Factory Superintendent; Jennifer Loyd, CellFor, Inc.; Oklahoma Pardon And Parole Board; Susan B. Loving, Chairman, Oklahoma Pardon and Parole Board; Jane F. Wheeler, Assistant Attorney General; Virginia Department of Corrections; Virginia Parole Board; Commonwealth of Virginia, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 11-6272.
    United States Court of Appeals, Tenth Circuit.
    March 29, 2012.
    William L.A. Church, Helena, OK, pro se.
    Margie Weaver, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Oklahoma, Michael L. Brooks, Ryan S. Wilson, Hartzog Conger Cason & Neville, Oklahoma City, OK, Christopher B. Supino, Richard Vo-rhis, Office of the Attorney General for the State of Virginia, Richmond, VA, for Defendants-Appellees.
    Before LUCERO, McKAY, and GORSUCH, Circuit Judges.
   ORDER AND JUDGMENT

NEIL M. GORSUCH, Circuit Judge.

William Church was convicted in Virginia of rape and forcible sodomy and for those crimes sentenced to prison. Thanks to an interstate compact, Mr. Church finds himself serving his Virginia sentence in an Oklahoma state prison. In this pro se 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action, originally filed in Oklahoma federal court, Mr. Church seeks relief on an array of claims against various officials in Oklahoma and Virginia alike. The magistrate judge assigned to the case ultimately prepared three separate reports and recommendations assessing all of Mr. Church’s claims. And after careful review, we are convinced the district judge was right to adopt the magistrate judge’s recommendation to dismiss or grant summary judgment on all of Mr. Church’s claims. By way of example, Mr. Church argues his innocence, claiming that he is not the selfsame ‘William Church” who was convicted of rape and forcible sodomy in Virginia. But Mr. Church fails to allege facts suggesting he might have a plausible claim on this score. And even if he had, to the extent he seeks release or calls into question his conviction and sentence, Mr. Church’s lawful remedy isn’t a § 1983 damages action but a habeas petition. See Church v. United States, 2008 WL 5704482 (E.D.Va.2008) (explaining the same in an earlier case filed by Mr. Church).

Affirmed. 
      
       After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The case is therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive value consistent with Fed. R.App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
     