Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Deen-Mitchell v. Lappin

United States District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania

August 15, 2014

WALLACE DEEN-MITCHELL, Plaintiff,
v.
HARLEY G. LAPPIN and FEDERAL BUREAU OF PRISONS, Defendants.

ORDER

CHRISTOPHER C. CONNER, Chief District Judge.

AND NOW, this 15th day of August, 2014, upon consideration of the report (Doc. 160) of Magistrate Judge Karoline Mehalchick, issued July 15, 2014, wherein Judge Mehalchick recommends that the court deny the motion (Doc. 122) of pro se plaintiff Wallace Deen-Mitchell ("Deen-Mitchell") requesting the court to reinstate his motion (Doc. 74) seeking a preliminary injunction against certain of his then-jailers at United States Penitentiary ("USP") Lewisburg because Deen-Mitchell since has been transferred to USP Florence, where he is currently incarcerated, and his claim for injunctive relief against corrections officers at USP Lewisburg is now moot, (Doc. 160 at 2), and, after an independent review of the record, the court in full agreement with the Magistrate Judge that Deen-Mitchell's transfer to USP Florence moots his claim for injunctive relief against his former jailers at USP Lewisburg, see Ibarra-Villalva v. USP-Allenwood, 213 F.Appx. 132, 134 (3d Cir. 2007) (concluding that prisoner's "claims are moot to the extent that he still seeks a temporary restraining order... because he has already been transferred to another institution"); see also Sutton v. Bradley, No. 07-1798, 2007 WL 4570781 (M.D. Pa. Dec. 26, 2007) (same), and it appearing that neither party has objected to the report, and that there is no clear error on the face of the record, [1] see Nara v. Frank , 488 F.3d 187, 194 (3d Cir. 2007) (explaining that "failing to timely object to [a report and recommendation] in a civil proceeding may result in forfeiture of de novo review at the district court level"), it is hereby ORDERED that:

1. The report of the magistrate judge (Doc. 160) is ADOPTED in its entirety.
2. Petitioner's motion (Doc. 122) for reinstatement of his motion (Doc. 74) for a preliminary injunction is DENIED.
3. This matter is REMANDED to Magistrate Judge Mehalchick for further proceedings.

Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.