United States District Court, D. South Carolina
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
V. HODGES, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Nathaniel Brown (“Petitioner”), proceeding pro se
is incarcerated by the Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”)
at Federal Correctional Institute Allenwood (“FCI
Allenwood”) in White Deer, Pennsylvania. He filed the
instant petition for a writ of habeas corpus pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2241. This matter is before the court pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule
73.02(B)(2)(c) (D.S.C.) for a Report and Recommendation on
Respondent's motion to dismiss or for summary judgment.
[ECF No. 25].
to Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d 309 (4th Cir.
1975), the court advised Petitioner of the summary judgment
and dismissal procedures and the possible consequences if he
failed to respond adequately to Respondent's motion by
August 23, 2019. [ECF No. 26]. Petitioner filed a response on
August 2, 2019 [ECF No. 28], to which Respondent replied on
August 23, 2019 [ECF No. 33]. For the following reasons, the
undersigned finds the petition moot and recommends the
district court grant Respondent's motion to dismiss.
Factual and Procedural Background
filed this action on March 26, 2019, in the United States
District Court for the Middle District of Pennsylvania
against Respondent, Georgetown Municipal Court, alleging
South Carolina had violated the Interstate Agreement on
Detainers Act, § 2, 18 U.S.C. app. 2
(“Act”). [ECF No. 1 at 1-6]. On May 17, 2019, the
Middle District of Pennsylvania transferred the petition to
this court and on May 20, 2019, the court authorized service
of process. [ECF Nos. 12, 14].
December 18, 2018, while Petitioner was in federal custody,
the Georgetown Police Department requested a detainer on
Petitioner for warrants issued by Respondent. [ECF No. 1 at
17-18; ECF No. 8-1 at 15-17]. Petitioner asserts he sent
multiple requests to Respondent pursuant to the Act for
disposition of his charges within 180 days, but Respondent
either denied or ignored his requests. [ECF No. 1 at 10]. He
seeks a court order requiring South Carolina to dismiss his
charges and remove the detainer. Id. at 8.
maintains it has no jurisdiction to try Petitioner or
otherwise dispose of his state charges and thus is not the
proper respondent to this action. [ECF No. 24 at 1-2].
Nevertheless, Respondent's counsel contacted the
Fifteenth Circuit Solicitor's Office concerning
Petitioner's charges. Id. at 3. The Solicitor
informed counsel he did not intend to pursue the charges and
would remove the detainer and instructed Respondent to void
the warrants. Id. Respondent has provided the court
with copies of the voided warrants and a letter from the
Georgetown Police Department Captain to the Correctional
Systems Officer at FCI Allenwood dated August 22, 2019,
requesting he remove the detainer on Petitioner and attaching
the voided warrants. [ECF No. 24-1; ECF No. 33-1]. The
warrant numbers on the voided warrants match the warrant
numbers Petitioner references in the petition.
[Compare ECF No. 1 at 2 with ECF No. 24-1
response does not address Respondent's assertion that his
warrants and detainer have now been discharged, but merely
reasserts his request for an order vacating the charges. [ECF
No. 28 at 1-2].
contends Petitioner has received his requested relief and the
court should dismiss the petition as moot. [ECF No. 33 at
case becomes moot ‘when the issues presented are no
longer ‘live' or the parties lack a legally
cognizable interest in the outcome.'” Williams
v. Ozmint, 716 F.3d 801, 809 (4th Cir. 2013) (quoting
Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969).
“‘[I]t is not enough that a dispute was very much
alive when [the] suit was filed,' but the parties must
continue to have a ‘particularized, concrete stake'
in the outcome of the case through all stages of
litigation.” Id. at 808-09 (quoting Lewis
v. Cont'l Bank Corp., 494 U.S. 472, 477-79 (1990)).
Thus, “[a] claim may be mooted ‘when the claimant
receives the relief he or she sought to obtain through the
claim,' because the court no longer ‘has 
effective relief to offer.'” Id. at 809
(quoting Friedman's, Inc. v. Dunlap, 290 F.3d
191, 197 (4th Cir. 2002)); see also Simmons v. United
Mortg. & Loan Inv., LLC, 634 F.3d 754, 763 (4th Cir.
2011) (finding claim moot on appeal where plaintiff received
has received all of his requested relief and the sole issue
presented in the petition has been resolved. Accordingly, the
petition is moot and the court lacks jurisdiction over this
case. See Iron Arrow Honor Soc'y v. Heckler, 464
U.S. 67, 70 (1983) (finding a court is deprived of
jurisdiction over a case when the case becomes moot);
Pashby v. Delia, 709 F.3d 307, 316 (4th Cir. 2013)
Conclusion and Recommendation
foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the district
judge grant Respondent's motion to dismiss or for summary