Truett v. Shaw

17 F. App'x 123
CourtCourt of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
DecidedAugust 21, 2001
Docket01-6235
StatusUnpublished
Cited by1 cases

This text of 17 F. App'x 123 (Truett v. Shaw) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Truett v. Shaw, 17 F. App'x 123 (4th Cir. 2001).

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

Thomas Jack Truett appeals the district court’s order denying relief on his Bivens complaint. * We have reviewed the record *124 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 *124 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).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
17 F. App'x 123, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/truett-v-shaw-ca4-2001.