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UNPUBLISHED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Affirmed in part, vacated in part, and remanded by unpublished per curiam opinion.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 _________________________________________________________________ Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.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.* 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