United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
BRISTOW MARCHANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE.
pro se case was removed to this Court by the Defendant on
August 20, 2017. Prior to that time, the case had been
pending in state court since August 26, 2015. The Defendant
removed this case after Plaintiff filed a document titled
"Amendment" on August 29, 2017 in which he stated
that the Defendant's restriction of his visitation
privileges violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Prior to
that time, Plaintiffs claims (which he continues to also
assert) only alleged violations of state law.
March 9, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion for summary
judgment, seeking dismissal of Plaintiff s federal
claim. As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a
Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on March 12,
2018, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive
motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response.
Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to file
a properly supported response, the Defendant's motion may
be granted. However, notwithstanding the specific warning and
instructions as set forth in the Court's
Roseboro order, the Plaintiff has failed to respond
to the motion other than to file a "motion for
trial". Plaintiff further asks in his "motion"
that this Court only address the "amended" portions
of his claim in issuing any order, and that his original
claims be transferred "back to the state court for Judge
Cooper to rule upon
argues in her motion, inter alia, that Plaintiffs
federal visitation claim should be dismissed as moot, because
Plaintiff only requested injunctive relief and he has now
been released and is no long in custody. A review of
Plaintiff s amendment confirms that he only seeks declaratory
or injunctive relief with respect to this claim. See Court
Docket No. 1-1, pp. 85-89. Therefore, the undersigned agrees
with the Defendant that this claim should be dismissed.
See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 287
(4th Cir. 2007) ["Once an inmate is removed
from the environment in which he is subjected to the
challenged policy or practice, absent a claim for damages, he
no longer has a legally cognizable interest in a judicial
decision on the merits of his claim"], cert,
denied, 128 S.Ct. 2056 (2008); see also Williams
v. Griffith, 952 F.2d 820 (4th Cir. 1991).
on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Defendant's
motion for summary judgment be granted, and
that Plaintiffs federal claim challenging the prison's
visitation policy be dismissed. Plaintiffs
remaining state law claims should then be remanded back to
state court for disposition. Mills, 709 F.Supp. at
parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.
of Right to File Objections to Report and
parties are advised that they may file specific written
objections to this Report and Recommendation with the
District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the
portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections
are made and the basis for such objections. "[I]n the
absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need
not conduct a de novo review, but instead must 'only
satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of
the record in order to accept the recommendation.'"
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Ace. Ins. Co., 416
F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72
advisory committee's note).
written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of
the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see
Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal
Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing
Robin L. Blume, Clerk United States District Court Post
Office Box 835 Charleston, South Carolina 29402
to timely file specific written objections to this Report and
Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal
from a judgment of the District Court based upon such
Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1);
Thomas v. Am, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v.
Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States
v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).