Case Name: James D. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arthur F. BEELER; Harley G. Lappin; Harrell Watts; Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-06
Citations: 114 F. App'x 580
Docket Number: No. 03-6881
Parties: James D. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arthur F. BEELER; Harley G. Lappin; Harrell Watts; Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 114
Pages: 580–580

Head Matter:
James D. LYONS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Arthur F. BEELER; Harley G. Lappin; Harrell Watts; Kathleen Hawk-Sawyer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 03-6881.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: Oct. 15, 2004.
Decided: Dec. 6, 2004.
Neal Lawrence Walters, Charlottesville, Virginia, for Appellant.
Frank DeArmon Whitney, United States Attorney, Rudolf A. Renfer, Jr., Anne Margaret Hayes, Assistant United States Attorneys, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellees.
Before WIDENER, NIEMEYER, and TRAXLER, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed in part; dismissed in part by unpublished per curiam opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See Local Rule 36(c).

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
James D. Lyons appeals the district court's order denying relief on his complaint filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971). The Government has moved to dismiss on the basis that the sole claim advanced by Lyons' counsel is rendered moot by amendments to the federal regulations controlling smoking in the Bureau of Prisons. We agree that the amended regulations render this claim moot. Accordingly, we grant in part the motion to dismiss, and we dismiss this claim. See Leonard v. Hammond, 804 F.2d 838, 842 (4th Cir.1986).
We deny, however, the Government's motion to dismiss with respect to Lyons' remaining pro se claims. Having considered these remaining claims on the merits, we nonetheless find them unpersuasive. Accordingly, we affirm as to the remaining claims on the reasoning of the district court. See Lyons v. Beeler, No. CA-02-467-5-F3 (E.D.N.C. Apr. 23, 2003). 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 IN PART; DISMISSED IN PART