Adam J. Ciralsky v. George J. Tenet, individually

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 10-2414
ADAM J. CIRALSKY,
Plaintiff – Appellant,
v.
GEORGE J. TENET, individually and in his capacity as
Director of Central Intelligence; LOUIS JOSEPH FREEH, in
his capacity as Director of the Federal Bureau of
Investigation; ROBERT MCNAMARA, JR., individually and in
his capacity as the General Counsel Central Intelligence
Agency; JOHN DOE, individually and in his capacity as the
Chief, Counterintelligence Center, CIA; EDWARD CURRAN,
individually and in his capacity as Chief,
Counterintelligence Group, CIA; JOHN LEWIS, individually
and in his capacity as Assistant Director of the Federal
Bureau of Investigation; RICHARD CALDER, individually and
in his capacity as Deputy Director for Administration, CIA;
DAWN EILENBERGER, individually and in her capacity as the
Principal Deputy General Counsel, CIA; KATHLEEN MCGINN,
individually and in her capacity as Complaints Attorney,
Office of Equal Employment Opportunity, CIA,
Defendants – Appellees,
and
CENTRAL INTELLIGENCE AGENCY; FEDERAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATION,
Defendants.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema,
District Judge. (1:10-cv-00911-LMB-JFA)

-- 1 of 3 --

2
Submitted: August 15, 2011 Decided: December 20, 2011
Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Richard L. Swick, David H. Shapiro, Ellen K. Renaud, SWICK &
SHAPIRO, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Tony West,
Assistant Attorney General, Neil H. MacBride, United States
Attorney, R. Joseph Sher, Assistant United States Attorney,
Douglas N. Letter, Dana Kaersvang, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

-- 2 of 3 --

3
PER CURIAM:
Adam J. Ciralsky appeals the district court’s judgment
dismissing his complaint alleging various causes of action under
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violations of his constitutional rights
and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2006). All of Ciralsky’s
claims arise from the revocation of his security clearance and
his subsequent termination from federal employment. The
district court dismissed Ciralsky’s complaint for lack of
subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, based
on qualified immunity, and as barred by the applicable statute
of limitations. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we
conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we
affirm the district court’s judgment. 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

-- 3 of 3 --