Irvin v. United States Probation Office for the Middle District of Alabama et al(INMATE 3)

Filing 35

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 1 Inmate 1983 Complaint filed by Norman Irvin, that this case be DISMISSED as moot. Objections to R&R due by 8/11/2009. Signed by Honorable Wallace Capel, Jr on 7/29/2009. (dmn)

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION N O R M A N IRVIN, P l a in tif f , v. UNITED STATES PROBATION OFFICE F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT O F ALABAMA, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 2:09cv161-TMH (WO)

R E C O M M E N D A T I O N OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE I n this Bivens action,1 the plaintiff, Norman Irvin ("Irvin"), complains that his c o n stitu tio n a l rights have been violated by the United States Probation Office for the Middle D is tric t of Alabama and other individuals named as defendants in this case. Specifically, Irv in alleges that he is being wrongfully denied a federal parole revocation hearing. Through h is complaint, which was filed on February 23, 2009, Irvin seeks only injunctive relief. See C o m p la in t (Doc. No. 1), ¶ 6. Specifically, he demands that the defendants "immediately act to provide him [a] revocation hearing, as over-due." Id. Upon consideration of the pleadings a n d other evidentiary matters filed in this case, the court concludes that Irvin's complaint is d u e to be dismissed because his claims are moot. D IS C U S S IO N Irv in complains that he is being wrongfully denied a federal parole revocation hearing

1

Bivens v. Six Unknown Federal Narcotics Agents, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).

a n d requests, as relief, that the defendants be directed to immediately provide him with a re v o c atio n hearing. However, on May 27, 2009, after initiating this action, Irvin received a federal parole revocation hearing. See Special Report (Doc. No. 28) at p. 4. Thus, he has rec eive d the remedy he seeks in his complaint. His claim for injunctive relief is therefore m o o t. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S. 625, 631 (1979); Cotterall v. Paul, 755 F .2 d 777, 781 (11 th Cir. 1985). B e c au s e Irvin's only requested relief has been provided, "the effects of the alleged v io la tio n " have been "completely and irrevocably eradicated. Davis, supra, 440 U.S. at 631. T h e court therefore concludes that this case should be dismissed as moot. C O N C L U SIO N A c c o r d in g ly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case b e DISMISSED as moot. It is further ORDERED that on or before August 11, 2009 the parties may file objections to the R e c o m m e n d a ti o n . Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive o r general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised th a t this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable. F a ilu re to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the M a g is tra te Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

2

D is tric t Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from a tta c k in g on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the D is tric t Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

W a in w r ig h t, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d 3 3 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en b a n c ), adopting as binding precedent all of the decisions of the former Fifth Circuit handed down prior to the close of business on September 30, 1981. D o n e this 29 th day of July, 2009.

/s/Wallace Capel, Jr. WALLACE CAPEL, JR. U N IT E D STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

3