claim because the lack of a grievance process causes no injury to their constitutional right of access to the courts. See Tucker v. Angelone, 954 F.Supp. 134, 136 (E.D.Va.1997). In any event, the factual record flatly contradicts any claim of intimidation. Accordingly, Blagman’s claim in this regard fails as well. IV. For the reasons stated above, defendants’ Motion for Summary Judgment will be granted and Blagman’s complaint dismissed. As judgment may be entered based on the facts, there is no need to review defendants’ assertion of qualified immunity. An appropriate Order will issue. 1 . Although Blagman has since been released from SDC, thus mooting his claims for injunc-tive relief, his claim for monetary damages remains. See Williams v. Griffin, 952 F.2d 820 (4th Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Taylor v. Rogers, 781 F.2d 1047, 1049 n. 1
holding that a prisoners transfer mooted claims for declaratory and injunctive relief holding that the case was not moot even though claims for injunctive and declaratory relief were no longer alive because the plaintiff had requested pecuniary relief holding that this court does not have jurisdiction over tax claims for declaratory or equitable relief holding that inmates transfer mooted claims for injunctive and declaratory relief but that claims for monetary damages were not moot holding that the plaintiff had standing even though automatic stay had terminated and his claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot because he also sought actual damages for violation of the automatic stay