Samuel Wayne Rylee v. United States Bureau of Prisons

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 09-6501
SAMUEL WAYNE RYLEE,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; Z. ROBERT VENDEL, M.D.,
U.S. Bureau of Prisons; M. L. RIVERA, Warden, FCI Estill,
Defendants - Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of
South Carolina, at Anderson. Patrick Michael Duffy, District
Judge. (8:08-cv-01643-PMD)
Submitted: September 10, 2009 Decided: September 14, 2009
Before KING, DUNCAN, and AGEE, Circuit Judges.
Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Samuel Wayne Rylee, Appellant Pro Se. Beth Drake, Assistant
United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 1 of 2 --

2
PER CURIAM:
Samuel Wayne Rylee, a federal inmate, appeals the
district court’s order accepting the recommendation of the
magistrate judge and granting summary judgment in favor of
defendants, dismissing his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v.
Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S.
388 (1971), alleging deliberate indifference to his serious
medical need for cataract surgery. During the pendency of his
appeal, Rylee underwent cataract surgery.
The Constitution limits the jurisdiction of federal
courts to actual cases or controversies. U.S. Const. art. III,
§ 2; Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988). The controversy
must be present at all stages of review. Arizonans for Official
English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 66 (1997). When a case becomes
moot after judgment in the district court, the appellate court
has no jurisdiction to hear the appeal. Mellen v. Bunting, 327
F.3d 355, 363-64 (4th Cir. 2003). We find that Rylee’s recent
cataract surgery renders his complaint moot, mooting as well his
appeal. Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal as moot. We also
deny Rylee’s motions for appointment of counsel and motion for
fees and costs.
DISMISSED

-- 2 of 2 --