Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00680/USCOURTS-almd-2_05-cv-00680-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 555
Nature of Suit: Prisoner - Prison Condition
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Prisoner Civil Rights

---

Young is in the custody of the Bureau of Prisons and currently incarcerated at Estill 1

Correctional Institution in Estill, South Carolina. See 

http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/LocateInmate.jsp.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

 NORTHERN DIVISION

 _______________________________

CLEOPHUS YOUNG *

Plaintiff, *

v. * 2:05-CV-680-MEF

 (WO)

WILLIE R. COLLINS, et al., *

Defendants. *

 _______________________________

RECOMMENDATION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

On July 25, 2005 Cleophus Young [“Young”], a federal inmate housed at the

Montgomery City Jail, filed this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 complaint challenging the conditions of

his confinement. In his complaint Young requests only injunctive relief. (Doc. No. 1 at pg.

4.) Young is no longer incarcerated at the Montgomery City Jail.1

Upon consideration of the pleadings filed in this case, the court concludes that the

instant complaint is due to be dismissed as the claims raised therein are moot.

I. DISCUSSION

Young complains that while incarcerated at the Montgomery City Jail Defendants

Case 2:05-cv-00680-MEF-VPM Document 11 Filed 09/13/06 Page 1 of 3
failed to provide him with a balanced diet which would accommodate his Type II diabetes.

He alleges that kitchen personnel failed to comply with diet profiles issued by medical

personnel which, in turn, required him take insulin shots and skip meals. (Doc. No. 1 at pg.

3.) The court has recently determined that Young is no longer confined in the Montgomery

City Jail. In light of the foregoing, the court concludes that Young’s claims for relief are

moot and that this case is due to be dismissed. See County of Los Angeles v. Davis, 440 U.S.

625 (1979); Cotterall v. Paul, 755 F.2d 777 (11th Cir. 1985). 

 II. CONCLUSION

Accordingly, it is the RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge that this case

be DISMISSED as moot. 

It is further 

ORDERED that on or before September 27, 2006 the parties may file objections to

the Recommendation. Any objections filed must specifically identify the findings in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation to which the party is objecting. Frivolous, conclusive

or general objections will not be considered by the District Court. The parties are advised

that this Recommendation is not a final order of the court and, therefore, it is not appealable.

Failure to file written objections to the proposed findings and advisements in the

Magistrate Judge's Recommendation shall bar the party from a de novo determination by the

District Court of issues covered in the Recommendation and shall bar the party from

attacking on appeal factual findings in the Recommendation accepted or adopted by the

Case 2:05-cv-00680-MEF-VPM Document 11 Filed 09/13/06 Page 2 of 3
District Court except upon grounds of plain error or manifest injustice. Nettles v.

Wainwright, 677 F.2d 404 (5th Cir. 1982). See Stein v. Reynolds Securities, Inc., 667 F.2d

33 (11th Cir. 1982). See also Bonner v. City of Prichard, 661 F.2d 1206 (11th Cir. 1981, en

banc), 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.

Done this 13 day of September 2006. th

/s/ Vanzetta Penn McPherson

VANZETTA PENN MCPHERSON

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 2:05-cv-00680-MEF-VPM Document 11 Filed 09/13/06 Page 3 of 3