Opinion
No. 19-6902
05-13-2021
OMARI H. PATTON, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. CRYSTAL KIMBLE, Defendant - Appellee.
Omari H. Patton, Appellant Pro Se.
UNPUBLISHED
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Northern District of West Virginia, at Elkins. John Preston Bailey, District Judge. (2:16-cv-00010-JPB-MJA) Before KING, KEENAN, and WYNN, Circuit Judges. Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Omari H. Patton, Appellant Pro Se. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM:
Omari H. Patton appeals the district court's order, entered upon remand from this court, see Patton v. Kimble, 717 F. App'x 271, 272 (4th Cir. 2018) (No. 17-7032), granting Federal Corrections Officer Crystal Kimble's motion for summary judgment in Patton's civil rights action filed pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). The sole issue remaining after we ruled in Patton's prior appeal, see Patton, 717 F. App'x at 272, was Patton's claim that Kimble violated the First Amendment by retaliating against Patton for filing administrative grievances. On remand, the district court analyzed the issue pursuant to Ziglar v. Abassi, 137 S. Ct. 1843 (2017), and ruled that the implied-damages remedy recognized in Bivens does not extend to First Amendment retaliation claims such as the one Patton advanced.
We recently addressed this issue in Earle v. Shreves, holding that the Bivens remedy may not "be extended to include a federal inmate's claim that prison officials violated his First Amendment rights by retaliating against him for filing grievances." 990 F.3d 774, 776 (4th Cir. 2021). Earle thus confirms the propriety of the district court's dispositive ruling. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's order granting summary judgment to Kimble. Patton v. Kimble, No. 2:16-cv-00010-JPB-MJA (N.D.W. Va. June 17, 2019).
We held this appeal in abeyance pending the disposition in Earle. --------
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