Case ID: f-appx_17/html/0123-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "PER CURIAM.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Thomas Jack TRUETT, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dr. SHAW; A. Yirga; J. Allen, Clinical Director; J. Fajardo; Emily Adams; A. Zayas, Defendants-Appellees.
    No. 01-6235.
    United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
    Submitted June 26, 2001.
    Decided Aug. 21, 2001.
    Thomas Jack Truett, pro se.
    Before LUTTIG, TRAXLER, and KING, Circuit Judges.
   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. Accordingly, 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 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. 
      
       The district court referred to Truett as a "Virginia inmate” but the record discloses that he is housed at the Federal Correctional Institution (FCI) at Petersburg, Virginia, and his action is against FCI officers. His action is therefore properly characterized 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), affd, 532 U.S. 731, 121 S.Ct. 1819, 149 L.Ed.2d 958 (2001).