Larry Andra McKinney-Bey v. Attorney General of the United States

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 03-6455
LARRY ANDRA MCKINNEY-BEY,
Petitioner - Appellant,
versus
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF THE UNITED STATES;
KATHLEEN HAWK-SAWYER,
Respondents - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh. Terrence W. Boyle, Chief
District Judge. (CA-03-115)
Submitted: May 15, 2003 Decided: May 29, 2003
Before LUTTIG and KING, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Dismissed in part and affirmed in part as modified by unpublished
per curiam opinion.
Larry Andra McKinney-Bey, Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Larry Andra McKinney-Bey seeks to appeal the district court’s
order denying relief on his habeas corpus action filed under 28
U.S.C. § 2241 (2000). In his petition, Appellant sought an
immediate transfer from prison to a half-way house and monetary
damages for delaying his transfer. A review of the record indicates
that Appellant received the transfer on April 30, 2003; thus, his
request for habeas relief is moot. See Nakell v. Attorney Gen. of
N. Carolina, 15 F.3d 319, 322 (4th Cir. 1994) (a case becomes moot
when the issues presented are no longer live, or when parties lack
a cognizable interest in the outcome). Therefore, we deny a
certificate of appealability and dismiss the appeal as to this
claim.
To the extent that Appellant sought money damages, such relief
is not available under § 2241. As the district court found, an
action for monetary damages is properly pursued by way of a civil
rights action. Thus, we affirm the district court’s dismissal of
Appellant’s claim for money damages, noting that the dismissal is
without prejudice as to Appellant’s right to bring a civil rights
action against the appropriate defendants for monetary damages.
However, we express no opinion regarding the merits of such an
action.
Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and
dismiss Appellant’s habeas corpus claim as moot, and affirm the

-- 2 of 3 --

3
dismissal of Appellant’s action for money damages, as modified. 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 in the decisional process.
DISMISSED IN PART, AFFIRMED
IN PART AS MODIFIED

-- 3 of 3 --