Samuel Rylee v. United States Bureau of Prison

Filing 920090914

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT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Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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