
    Gregory Roland PRUESS, Petitioner-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent-Appellee.
    No. 04-7372.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted: Jan. 28, 2005.
    Decided: Feb. 22, 2005.
    Gregory Roland Pruess, Appellant pro se.
    Brian Lee Whisler, Assistant United States Attorney, Richmond, Virginia, for Appellee.
    Before NIEMEYER, WILLIAMS, and KING, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).
   PER CURIAM:

Gregory Roland Pruess, a federal prisoner, seeks to appeal the district court’s order denying his motion filed pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b), taken from the district court’s previous denial of his petition filed pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). We affirm the district court’s denial of relief on the ground that Pruess’ claim previously was considered by the district court in evaluating Pruess’ § 2241 petition, as well as by this court on appeal of the district court’s denial of the petition. See United States v. Pruess, Nos. 01-6346, 02-6803 (4th Cir. Oct. 8, 2002) (unpublished). Rule 60(b) may not be used to relitigate claims already decided by the court, CNF Constructors, Inc. v. Donohoe Constr. Co., 57 F.3d 395, 400 (4th Cir.1995), and Pruess has raised no new ground to call into question the propriety of that decision. We further affirm the district court’s denial of relief based on the timeliness of Pruess’ Rule 60(b) motion. 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 
      
       Although the district court denied relief, in part, in reliance on this court’s decision in United States v. Winestock, 340 F.3d 200 (4th Cir.), cert. denied, 540 U.S. 995, 124 S.Ct. 496, 157 L.Ed.2d 395 (2003), that case does not apply because this matter arises from Pruess’ § 2241 petition, rather than from a § 2255 motion. Accordingly, neither the certificate of appealability requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 2253 (2000), nor Winestock, applies to this action.
     