David Lightner v. Christopher Zych

Filing

UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed. Originating case number: 7:14-cv-00019-JCT-RSB Copies to all parties and the district court/agency. [999380794]. Mailed to: Lightner. [14-6336]

Download PDF
Appeal: 14-6336 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/23/2014 Pg: 1 of 2 UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6336 DAVID FITZGERALD LIGHTNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER ZYCH, United States Bureau of Prisons Warden; R. COSGRO, Supervisory Chaplain; T. ROBINSON, Chaplain; WALTERS, Chaplain; JOHN DOE, Statutory Agent Officer; JANE DOE, Statutory Agent Officer, Defendants - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Virginia, at Roanoke. James C. Turk, Senior District Judge. (7:14-cv-00019-JCT-RSB) Submitted: June 19, 2014 Decided: June 23, 2014 Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. David Fitzgerald Lightner, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. Appeal: 14-6336 Doc: 8 Filed: 06/23/2014 Pg: 2 of 2 PER CURIAM: David Fitzgerald Lightner appeals the district court’s order construing his complaint as an action pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), and denying relief. record and find no reversible error. We have reviewed the Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lightner v. Zych, No. 7:14-cv-00019-JCT-RSB (W.D. Va. Feb. 19, 2014). * We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED * To the extent Lightner argues the court erred in not allowing him to seek injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedures Act, Lightner’s subsequent transfer to another facility moots this claim. 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?