Samuel Rylee v. United States Bureau of Prison
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
SAMUEL WAYNE RYLEE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; Z. ROBERT VENDEL, M.D., U.S. Bureau of Prisons; M. L. RIVERA, Warden, FCI Estill, Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, District Judge. (8:08-cv-01643-PMD)
September 10, 2009
September 14, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Wayne Rylee, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM: Samuel district magistrate court's judge Wayne order and Rylee, a federal the inmate, appeals of favor the the of
recommendation judgment in
defendants, dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious
medical need for cataract surgery.
During the pendency of his
appeal, Rylee underwent cataract surgery. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal
courts to actual cases or controversies.
U.S. Const. art. III, The controversy
§ 2; Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988). must be present at all stages of review.
Arizonans for Official When a case becomes
English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997).
moot after judgment in the district court, the appellate court has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. F.3d 355, 363-64 (4th Cir. 2003). Mellen v. Bunting, 327
We find that Rylee's recent
cataract surgery renders his complaint moot, mooting as well his appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We also
deny Rylee's motions for appointment of counsel and motion for fees and costs. DISMISSED
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?