Thomas Jack Truett v. Churner, 206 F.3d 289, 291 3d Cir. 2000 , aff’d, No. 99-1964, 2001 WL 567712 U.S.…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 01-6235
THOMAS JACK TRUETT,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
DR. SHAW; A. YIRGA; J. ALLEN, Clinical Direc-
tor; J. FAJARDO; EMILY ADAMS; A. ZAYAS,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Henry C. Morgan, Jr., District
Judge. (CA-00-953-2)
Submitted: June 26, 2001 Decided: August 21, 2001
Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Thomas Jack Truett, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 2 --

* The district court referred to Truett as a “Virginia inmate”
but the record discloses that he is housed at the Federal Correc-
tional Institution (FCI) at Petersburg, Virginia, and his action is
against FCI officers. His action is therefore properly charac-
terized as a Bivens action rather than a § 1983 action. The
characterization of Truett’s petition does not affect our analysis
because courts have applied § 1997e(a)in the same manner to both
§ 1983 actions and Bivens actions. See Booth v. Churner, 206 F.3d
289, 291 (3d Cir. 2000), aff’d, No. 99-1964, 2001 WL 567712 (U.S.
May 29, 2001).
2
PER CURIAM:
Thomas Jack Truett appeals the district court’s order denying
relief on his Bivens complaint. * We have reviewed the record and
the district court’s opinion and find no reversible error. Accord-
ingly, although we grant leave to proceed in forma pauperis, we
affirm substantially on the reasoning of the district court. See
Truett v. Shaw, No. CA-00-953-2 (E.D. Va. Jan. 22, 2001). We dis-
pense 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

-- 2 of 2 --