Case Name: John P. ROYSTER, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; the Supreme Court of New York State; the New York District Attorney's Office; the Metropolitan Correctional Facility; the United States Justice Department; New York State Department of Correctional Services; Christopher Artuz; Lieutenant Lopez of MCC; C.O. Bailey of GH; C.O. Bickford of GH; C.O. Demmaris of GH; C.O. K. Torres; Sgt. Overby of GH; Daniel Gotlin, an 18b Attorney, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-08-09
Citations: 104 F. App'x 215
Docket Number: No. 00-0185
Parties: John P. ROYSTER, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; the Supreme Court of New York State; the New York District Attorney’s Office; the Metropolitan Correctional Facility; the United States Justice Department; New York State Department of Correctional Services; Christopher Artuz; Lieutenant Lopez of MCC; C.O. Bailey of GH; C.O. Bickford of GH; C.O. Demmaris of GH; C.O. K. Torres; Sgt. Overby of GH; Daniel Gotlin, an 18b Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: PRESENT: McLAUGHLIN, CALABRESI, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 104
Pages: 215–216

Head Matter:
John P. ROYSTER, Sr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America; the Supreme Court of New York State; the New York District Attorney’s Office; the Metropolitan Correctional Facility; the United States Justice Department; New York State Department of Correctional Services; Christopher Artuz; Lieutenant Lopez of MCC; C.O. Bailey of GH; C.O. Bickford of GH; C.O. Demmaris of GH; C.O. K. Torres; Sgt. Overby of GH; Daniel Gotlin, an 18b Attorney, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 00-0185.
United States Court of Appeals, Second Circuit.
Aug. 9, 2004.
John P. Royster, for Plaintiff-Appellant, pro se.
Ross E. Morrison for Mary Jo White, United States Attorney for the Southern District of New York (Jeffrey Oestericher, on the brief), for Defendants-Appellees.
PRESENT: McLAUGHLIN, CALABRESI, and POOLER, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
SUMMARY ORDER
The Supreme Court has vacated our judgment in the proposed case and remanded it to us for consideration in light of Porter v. Nussle, 534 U.S. 516, 122 S.Ct. 983, 152 L.Ed.2d 12 (2002). Upon consideration of Porter v. Nussle, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court in all its particulars.