Samuel Rylee v. United States Bureau of Prison, No. 09-6501 (4th Cir. 2009)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 09-6501 SAMUEL WAYNE RYLEE, Plaintiff Appellant, v. UNITED STATES BUREAU OF PRISONS; Z. ROBERT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 Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Samuel district court s magistrate judge Wayne Rylee, order and a accepting granting federal the inmate, appeals recommendation summary judgment the the favor in of 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 medical need for cataract surgery. indifference to his serious During the pendency of his appeal, Rylee underwent cataract surgery. The Constitution limits the jurisdiction courts to actual cases or controversies. federal U.S. Const. art. III, § 2; Honig v. Doe, 484 U.S. 305, 317 (1988). must be present at all stages of review. of The controversy 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. F.3d 355, 363-64 (4th Cir. 2003). Mellen v. Bunting, 327 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

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.