Court Opinion

ID: 9963208
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-04-24 19:01:00.968602+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T08:24:42.544256
License: Public Domain

USCA4 Appeal: 22-7471      Doc: 21         Filed: 04/23/2024     Pg: 1 of 4

                                             UNPUBLISHED

                               UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
                                   FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

                                               No. 22-7471

        ALFREDO BELTRAN LEYVA,

                             Plaintiff - Appellant,

                      v.

        FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS (BOP); MICHAEL CARVAJAL, individually
        and as the Director of the BOP; JAMES PETRUCCI, individually and as the
        Mid-Atlantic Regional Director of the BOP; CATRICIA HOWARD, individually
        and as an Assistant Director Corrections Program Division of the BOP; MICHAEL
        FACEY, individually and as a Hearing Officer of the BOP; LINDA GETER,
        individually and as the Chief of the Designation and Sentence Computation Center
        of the BOP; RICHARD HUDGINS, individually and as the Complex Warden-
        Hazelton of the BOP; STANLEY LOVETT, JR., individually and as the Complex
        Warden-Hazelton of the BOP; LIEUTENANT VINCENT CRUZ, individually and
        as a member of Special Investigative Services at USP Hazelton, BOP; JOHN/JANE
        DOE 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5, employees of the BOP,

                             Defendants - Appellees.

        Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at
        Wheeling. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (5:22-cv-00142-JPB-JPM)

        Submitted: March 20, 2024                                        Decided: April 23, 2024

        Before KING and AGEE, Circuit Judges, and FLOYD, Senior Circuit Judge.

        Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7471      Doc: 21         Filed: 04/23/2024    Pg: 2 of 4

        ON BRIEF: Linda George, LINDA GEORGE, ATTORNEY AT LAW, Hackensack,
        New Jersey, for Appellant. Morgan S. McKee, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE
        OF THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY, Wheeling, West Virginia; Erin K.
        Reisenweber, Assistant United States Attorney, OFFICE OF THE UNITED STATES
        ATTORNEY, Martinsburg, West Virginia, for Appellees.

        Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

                                                    2
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7471       Doc: 21          Filed: 04/23/2024      Pg: 3 of 4

        PER CURIAM:

               Alfredo Beltran Leyva appeals from the district court’s order granting summary

        judgment to Defendants * and dismissing his amended civil action. Leyva challenges the

        grant of judgment to Defendants on his fourth cause of action requesting the issuance of a

        writ of mandamus against the Bureau of Prisons. Leyva argues he is entitled to mandamus

        relief and that the district court’s ruling was premature, since it issued before the

        commencement of discovery. Upon review of the record and the parties’ briefs, we find

        no abuse of discretion in the timing of the district court’s decision. See Shaw v. Foreman,

        59 F.4th 121, 128-29 (4th Cir. 2023).

               We review de novo the district court’s denial of the relief Leyva requested in his

        fourth cause of action.       See Smith v. CSRA, 12 F.4th 396, 402 (4th Cir. 2021);

        Marquez-Ramos v. Reno, 69 F.3d 477, 479 (10th Cir. 1995). A plaintiff may be entitled to

        mandamus relief where he demonstrates “he has a clear and indisputable right to the relief

        sought” and “the responding party has a clear duty to do the specific act requested.” United

        States ex rel. Rahman v. Oncology Assocs., P.C., 198 F.3d 502, 511 (4th Cir. 1999). As

        Leyva has not shown his clear entitlement to the specific relief he requested, we discern no

        reversible error in the district court’s denial of his fourth cause of action.

               *
                  The district court’s order granted Defendants’ motion to dismiss or, in the
        alternative, for summary judgment. Because the district court considered matters outside
        of the pleadings in making its rulings in this order, we treat the motion as one for summary
        judgment. Edelman v. Lynchburg Coll., 300 F.3d 400, 404 (4th Cir. 2002).

                                                       3
USCA4 Appeal: 22-7471      Doc: 21         Filed: 04/23/2024      Pg: 4 of 4

               Accordingly, we affirm the district court’s order. 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

                                                     4