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)

Download PDF
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

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?