Ostap Kapelioujnyi v. K. Dixon , 418 F. App'x 301 ( 2011 )


Menu:
  •      Case: 10-10298 Document: 00511411101 Page: 1 Date Filed: 03/15/2011
    IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
    FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT  United States Court of Appeals
    Fifth Circuit
    FILED
    March 15, 2011
    No. 10-10298                         Lyle W. Cayce
    Clerk
    OSTAP KAPELIOUJNYI
    Plaintiff-Appellant
    v.
    WARDEN K. DIXON, Dalby Correctional Facility; WARDEN L. BOND,
    Programs Warden at Dalby; H. Bryan, Security Warden at Dalby; CAPTAIN
    E. MATHIS, at Dalby; F. POSTEL, Programs Manager at Dalby; M. CRUISE,
    Librarian at Dalby; JOHN AND JANE DOE, known and unknown, As
    Employees and in their individual capacities; MANAGEMENT AND
    TRAINING CORPORATION, Manages Dalby Correctional Facility and
    employs all Defendants named above,
    Defendants-Appellees
    Appeal from the United States District Court
    for the Northern District of Texas
    USDC. No. 5:09-CV-100
    Before JONES, Chief Judge, BENAVIDES and STEWART, Circuit Judges.
    PER CURIAM:*
    Appellant Ostap Kapelioujnyi is a federal prisoner who at one time was
    housed at the Giles W. Dalby Correctional Facility (the Dalby Facility) in Post,
    Texas. Appellant brought a suit pursuant to 
    42 U.S.C. § 1983
    , claiming his
    *
    Pursuant to 5TH CIR . R. 47.5, the court has determined that this opinion should not
    be published and is not precedent except under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR .
    R. 47.5.4.
    Case: 10-10298 Document: 00511411101 Page: 2 Date Filed: 03/15/2011
    No. 10-10298
    constitutional rights had been violated at the Dalby Facility. The court below
    characterized his claim as a Bivens claim 1 and dismissed his constitutional
    claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law
    claims complained of by Appellant.
    On appeal, Appellant contends that the district court erred in
    characterizing his claim as a Bivens claim, asserting that he has properly stated
    a claim under § 1983; or in the alternative, he has made a proper complaint
    under Bivens. Whether or not Appellant’s claim is properly viewed as a Bivens
    claim or a § 1983 claim, we find no error in the decision of the district court to
    dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which Appellant can recover.
    Accordingly, the judgment of the district court is AFFIRMED.
    1
    Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 
    403 U.S. 388
    (1971).
    2
    

Document Info

Docket Number: 10-10298

Citation Numbers: 418 F. App'x 301

Judges: Jones, Benavides, Stewart

Filed Date: 3/15/2011

Precedential Status: Non-Precedential

Modified Date: 11/5/2024