Summary
dismissing Bivens claims asserted against multiple individuals "jointly and severally," because plaintiff failed "to point to any specific violations of clearly established constitutional rights, by any specific defendants"
Summary of this case from Joseph v. MarylandOpinion
No. 10-2414
12-20-2011
Richard L. Swick, David H. Shapiro, Ellen K. Renaud, SWICK & SHAPIRO, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, R. Joseph Sher, Assistant United States Attorney, Douglas N. Letter, Dana Kaersvang, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. Brinkema, District Judge. (1:10-cv-00911-LMB-JFA) Before WILKINSON and MOTZ, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior Circuit Judge. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Richard L. Swick, David H. Shapiro, Ellen K. Renaud, SWICK & SHAPIRO, P.C., Washington, D.C., for Appellant. Tony West, Assistant Attorney General, Neil H. MacBride, United States Attorney, R. Joseph Sher, Assistant United States Attorney, Douglas N. Letter, Dana Kaersvang, UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Washington, D.C., for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Adam J. Ciralsky appeals the district court's judgment dismissing his complaint alleging various causes of action under Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971), for violations of his constitutional rights and violations of 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (2006). All of Ciralsky's claims arise from the revocation of his security clearance and his subsequent termination from federal employment. The district court dismissed Ciralsky's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, for failure to state a claim, based on qualified immunity, and as barred by the applicable statute of limitations. Having thoroughly reviewed the record, we conclude that the district court did not err. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. 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