Lyons v. Beeler , 114 F. App'x 580 ( 2004 )


Menu:
  •                             UNPUBLISHED
    UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
    No. 03-6881
    JAMES D. LYONS,
    Plaintiff - Appellant,
    versus
    ARTHUR F. BEELER; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; HARRELL
    WATTS; KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER,
    Defendants - Appellees.
    Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
    District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. James C. Fox, Senior
    District Judge. (CA-02-467-5-F3)
    Submitted:   October 15, 2004             Decided:   December 6, 2004
    Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
    Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam
    opinion.
    Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
    Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Rudolf A. Renfer,
    Jr., Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorneys,
    Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
    Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
    See Local Rule 36(c).
    PER CURIAM:
    James D. Lyons appeals the district court’s order denying
    relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown
    Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
     (1971).          The
    Government has moved to dismiss on the basis that the sole claim
    advanced by Lyons’ counsel is rendered moot by amendments to the
    federal regulations controlling smoking in the Bureau of Prisons.
    We agree that the amended regulations render this claim moot.
    Accordingly, we grant in part the motion to dismiss, and we dismiss
    this claim.     See Leonard v. Hammond, 
    804 F.2d 838
    , 842 (4th Cir.
    1986).
    We deny, however, the Government’s motion to dismiss with
    respect to Lyons’ remaining pro se claims. Having considered these
    remaining     claims   on   the   merits,   we    nonetheless   find   them
    unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm as to the remaining claims on
    the reasoning of the district court.             See Lyons v. Beeler, No.
    CA-02-467-5-F3 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 2003).            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 IN PART;
    DISMISSED IN PART
    - 2 -
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 03-6881

Citation Numbers: 114 F. App'x 580

Judges: Niemeyer, Per Curiam, Traxler, Widener

Filed Date: 12/6/2004

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 8/7/2023