Case Name: David Fitzgerald LIGHTNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher ZYCH, United States Bureau of Prisons Warden; R. Cosgro, Supervisory Chaplain; T. Robinson, Chaplain; Walters, Chaplain; John Doe, Statutory Agent Officer; Jane Doe, Statutory Agent Officer, Defendants-Appellees
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2014-06-23
Citations: 575 F. App'x 205
Docket Number: No. 14-6336
Parties: David Fitzgerald LIGHTNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher ZYCH, United States Bureau of Prisons Warden; R. Cosgro, Supervisory Chaplain; T. Robinson, Chaplain; Walters, Chaplain; John Doe, Statutory Agent Officer; Jane Doe, Statutory Agent Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's Federal Appendix
Volume: 575
Pages: 205–205

Head Matter:
David Fitzgerald LIGHTNER, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Christopher ZYCH, United States Bureau of Prisons Warden; R. Cosgro, Supervisory Chaplain; T. Robinson, Chaplain; Walters, Chaplain; John Doe, Statutory Agent Officer; Jane Doe, Statutory Agent Officer, Defendants-Appellees.
No. 14-6336.
United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit.
Submitted: June 19, 2014.
Decided: June 23, 2014.
David Fitzgerald Lightner, Appellant Pro Se.
Before NIEMEYER, MOTZ, and KEENAN, Circuit Judges.
Affirmed by unpublished PER CURIAM opinion.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
David Fitzgerald Lightner appeals the district court's order construing his complaint as an action 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), and denying relief. We have reviewed the record and find no reversible error. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated by the district court. Lightner v. Zych, No. 7:14-cv-00019-JCT-RSB (W.D.Va. Feb. 19, 2014). We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in.the materials before this court and argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED.
To the extent Lightner argues the court erred in not allowing him to seek injunctive relief under the Administrative Procedures Act, Lightner's subsequent transfer to another facility moots this claim.