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UNPUBLISHED PER CURIAM OPINION filed.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]
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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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?