Proctor v. SC Dept of Corr

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
MICHAEL SYLVESTER PROCTOR,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SOUTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS; GERALDINE P. MIRO,
Warden, Allendale Correctional
Institution, individually and in her
official capacity; RICHARD J.
MCCANTS, Acting Warden,
personally and in his official
No. 95-7491
capacity; YVONNE WILKINS, Unit
Manager, personally and in her
official capacity; PARKER EVATT,
Commissioner, South Carolina
Department of Corrections,
personally and in his official
capacity; JANE DOE, personally and
in her official capacity; RICHARD
ROE, personally and in his official
capacity,
Defendants-Appellees.
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of South Carolina, at Charleston.
Henry M. Herlong, Jr., District Judge.
(CA-94-1504-2-20AJ)
Submitted: December 26, 1995
Decided: May 24, 1996
Before WILKINSON, Chief Judge, NIEMEYER, Circuit Judge, and
PHILLIPS, Senior Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
_________________________________________________________________
COUNSEL
Michael Sylvester Proctor, Appellant Pro Se. Joseph Crouch Cole-
man, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. See
Local Rule 36(c).
_________________________________________________________________
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
The Appellant, Michael Proctor, sued the Defendants alleging that
they were deliberately indifferent to a serious medical condition by
exposing him to excessive levels of environmental tobacco smoke.
Proctor sought injunctive, declaratory, and monetary damages in such
amount as the court may find appropriate. Prior to ruling on the
Defendants' motion for summary judgment, the district court, upon
learning that Proctor had been transferred to another institution, sum-
marily dismissed the action as moot.
The claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were properly dis-
missed on that basis. See Magee v. Waters, 810 F.2d 451, 452 (4th
Cir. 1987). A claim for money damages is not, however, mooted by
an inmate's transfer to another facility. See Williams v. Griffin, 952
F.2d 820, 823 (4th Cir. 1991). Because Proctor plainly sought mone-
tary relief, that claim was not properly dismissed as moot. Accord-
ingly, we affirm the dismissal of all of Proctor's claims except his
claim for monetary damages. We remand that claim to the district
court for a determination of its merits.*
_________________________________________________________________
*See Helling v. McKinney, ___ U.S. ___, 61 U.S.L.W. 4648 (U.S. June
18, 1993) (No. 91-1958) (exposure, with deliberate indifference, of an
inmate to excessive environmental tobacco smoke may constitute viola-
tion of eighth amendment rights).
2
We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal conten-
tions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and
argument would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART, VACATED IN PART, AND REMANDED
3