CIRALSKY v. TENET, 10-2414. (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Number: infco20111220127
Visitors: 21
Filed: Dec. 20, 2011
Latest Update: Dec. 20, 2011
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adam J. Ciralsky appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint alleging various causes of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violations of his constitutional rights and violations of 42 U.S.C. 1985 (2006). All of Ciralsky's claims arise from the revocation of his security clearance and his subsequent termination from federal empl
Summary: Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Adam J. Ciralsky appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint alleging various causes of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics , 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violations of his constitutional rights and violations of 42 U.S.C. 1985 (2006). All of Ciralsky's claims arise from the revocation of his security clearance and his subsequent termination from federal emplo..
More
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
PER CURIAM:
Adam J. Ciralsky appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint alleging various causes of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violations of his constitutional rights and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2006). All of Ciralsky's claims arise from the revocation of his security clearance and his subsequent termination from federal employment. The district court dismissed Ciralsky's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, based on qualified immunity, and as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
