Douglas Jarvis v. US

Filing 920081216

Opinion

Download PDF
UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT No. 08-6976 DOUGLAS ALAN JARVIS, Plaintiff - Appellant, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA; BUREAU OF PRISONS; HARLEY G. LAPPIN; HARRELL WATTS; KIMBERLEY M. WHITE; TERRY BILLINGSLEY; MICHELLE T. FUSEYAMORE; KELLY BOYLE; PATRICIA R. STANSBERRY; VANESSA P. ADAMS; JEFF ALLEN; MICHEL JOSEPH; MILTON C. SPEIGHTS; ANTHONY HARDING, Plaintiffs - Appellees. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District Judge. (2:08-cv-00052-RAJ-TEM) Submitted: October 22, 2008 Decided: December 16, 2008 Before NIEMEYER, TRAXLER, and GREGORY, Circuit Judges. Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion. Douglas Alan Jarvis, Appellant Pro Se. George Maralan Kelley, III, Assistant United States Attorney, Norfolk, Virginia, for Appellees. Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit. PER CURIAM: Douglas Alan Jarvis appeals the district court's order denying his motion for preliminary injunction. An order granting or denying injunctive relief is immediately appealable. 28 U.S.C. 1292 (2000). However, "[t]o qualify as a case fit for federal-court adjudication, an actual controversy must be extant at all stages of review . . . ." Collection Agency, Inc., 179 F.3d 103, Toms v. Allied Bond & 105 (4th Cir. 1999) (quoting Arizonans for Official English v. Arizona, 520 U.S. 43, 67 (1997)). Because Jarvis has obtained the relief he sought, i.e., transfer to a community correctional center, we dismiss this appeal as moot. We grant Jarvis' motions to amend his informal brief and also deny as moot his motion to expedite. 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. DISMISSED 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?