Samuel Rylee v. United States Bureau of Prison

Filing 920090914

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6501 SAMUEL WAYNE RYLEE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; Z. ROBERT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) Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: 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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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 accepting recommendation judgment in granting summary 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 2

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?