Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-alsd-1_11-cv-00520/USCOURTS-alsd-1_11-cv-00520-0/pdf.json

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

---

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MICHAEL DARNELL OLIVER, *

AIS #207467, *

 *

Plaintiff, *

 *

vs. * CIVIL ACTION NO. 11-00520-KD-B

 * 

JOHNNY L. JOHNSON, et al., *

 *

Defendants. *

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

This is an action brought pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1983 by 

Michael Darnell Oliver, an Alabama inmate who is proceeding pro 

se and in forma pauperis. In addition to his Complaint (Doc. 

14), which is undergoing screening pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 

(e)(2)(B), Oliver has also filed the instant “Motion for Order 

of Injunction” (Doc. 16), which the Court is construing as a 

motion for a preliminary injunction. In his motion, Oliver 

alleges that he is confined at Holman Correction Facility, that 

on more than two occasions, he has been assaulted by officers at 

the facility, that the officers have threatened to injure him, 

and that he believes that his life is being threatened. (Doc. 

16).

Oliver’s motion has been referred to the undersigned 

Magistrate Judge for a recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S. C. § 

636(b)(1)(B), Local Rule 72.2 and the standing order of general 

Case 1:11-cv-00520-KD-B Document 21 Filed 06/27/12 Page 1 of 5
2

reference. Based upon a review of Oliver’s motion and the record 

evidence, it is recommended that his motion be denied as MOOT. 

The record reflects that Oliver has been transferred from 

the Holman Correctional Facility and is now incarcerated at the 

Donaldson Correctional Facility in Bessemer, Alabama. (Doc. 20). 

Because Oliver is no longer at the Holman facility, and has not 

alleged that he will or is likely to return to the Holman 

facility, his claim for injunctive relief is moot. See Spears v. 

Thigpen, 846 F.2d 1327, 1328 (11th Cir. 1988) (“This court has 

clearly stated the following: Absent class certification, an 

inmate's claim for injunctive and declaratory relief in a § 1983 

action fails to present a case or controversy once the inmate 

has been transferred.”); Wahl v. McIver, 773 F. 2d 1169, 1173 

(11th Cir. 1985)(“An inmate’s claim for injunctive and 

declaratory relief in a section 1983 action fails to present a 

case or controversy once the inmate has been transferred."); see

also Harkless v. Toney, 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 736963, 2012 WL 

1946506, at *6 (S.D. Ala. Mar. 16, 2012) (“Because a claim for 

injunctive relief is a prospective remedy, when the threat of 

future harm dissipates, the plaintiff's claims for equitable 

relief become moot because the plaintiff no longer needs

protection from future injury.”)(quoting Adler v. Duval Cnty. 

Sch. Bd., 112 F. 3d 1475, 1477 (llth Cir. 1997) (internal 

Case 1:11-cv-00520-KD-B Document 21 Filed 06/27/12 Page 2 of 5
3

punctuation omitted.) Accordingly, it is recommended that 

Plaintiff’s Motion for Order of Injunction be denied as MOOT.

The attached sheet contains important information regarding 

objections to this recommendation.

DONE this 27th day of June, 2012.

 /s/ SONJA F. BIVINS______ 

 UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00520-KD-B Document 21 Filed 06/27/12 Page 3 of 5
4

 MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S EXPLANATION OF PROCEDURAL RIGHTS AND

RESPONSIBILITIES FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATION AND

FINDINGS CONCERNING NEED FOR TRANSCRIPT

l. Objection. Any party who objects to this recommendation or 

anything in it must, within fourteen days of the date of service 

of this document, file specific written objections with the 

clerk of court. Failure to do so will bar a de novo

determination by the district judge of anything in the 

recommendation and will bar an attack, on appeal, of the factual 

findings of the magistrate judge. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); 

Lewis v. Smith, 855 F.2d 736, 738 (11th Cir. 1988). The 

procedure for challenging the findings and recommendations of 

the magistrate judge is set out in more detail in SD ALA LR 72.4 

(June 1, 1997), which provides, in part, that:

A party may object to a recommendation entered by a 

magistrate judge in a dispositive matter, that is, a 

matter excepted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), by filing 

a “Statement of Objection to Magistrate Judge’s

Recommendation” within ten days1 after being served 

with a copy of the recommendation, unless a different 

time is established by order. The statement of 

objection shall specify those portions of the 

recommendation to which objection is made and the 

basis for the objection. The objecting party shall 

submit to the district judge, at the time of filing 

the objection, a brief setting forth the party’s

arguments that the magistrate judge=s recommendation 

should be reviewed de novo and a different disposition 

made. It is insufficient to submit only a copy of the 

original brief submitted to the magistrate judge, 

although a copy of the original brief may be submitted 

or referred to and incorporated into the brief in 

support of the objection. Failure to submit a brief 

in support of the objection may be deemed an 

abandonment of the objection. 

 

1Effective December 1, 2009, the time for filing written 

objections was extended to “14 days after being served with a 

copy of the recommended disposition[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 

72(b)(2).

Case 1:11-cv-00520-KD-B Document 21 Filed 06/27/12 Page 4 of 5
5

A magistrate judge’s recommendation cannot be appealed to a 

Court of Appeals; only the district judge’s order or judgment 

can be appealed. 

2. Opposing party’s response to the objection. Any opposing 

party may submit a brief opposing the objection within fourteen 

(14) days of being served with a copy of the statement of 

objection. Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. 

3. Transcript (applicable where proceedings tape recorded). 

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915 and Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b), the 

magistrate judge finds that the tapes and original records in 

this action are adequate for purposes of review. Any party 

planning to object to this recommendation, but unable to pay the 

fee for a transcript, is advised that a judicial determination 

that transcription is necessary is required before the United 

States will pay the cost of the transcript.

DONE this 27th day of June, 2012.

 /s/ Sonja F. Bivins_____ 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:11-cv-00520-KD-B Document 21 Filed 06/27/12 Page 5 of 5