Filed: Jun. 23, 2014
Latest Update: Mar. 02, 2020
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6336 DAVID FITZGERALD LIGHTNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER ZYCH, United States Bureau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-
Summary: UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 14-6336 DAVID FITZGERALD LIGHTNER, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CHRISTOPHER ZYCH, United States Bureau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-0..
More
UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
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. We have reviewed the
record and find no reversible error. 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