Summary
finding the continuing violation doctrine did not apply to the plaintiff's due process claim in connection with being placed on the sex offender registry because he "complain[ed] of the present consequence of a one time violation, which does not extend the limitations period"
Summary of this case from Nunn v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr.Opinion
Case No. 3:08cv344/MCR/EMT.
October 15, 2009
ORDER
This cause comes on for consideration upon the magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation dated September 9, 2009 (Doc. 18). Plaintiff has been furnished a copy of the Report and Recommendation and has been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). I have made a de novo determination of any timely filed objections.
Having considered the Report and Recommendation, and any objections thereto timely filed, I have determined that the Report and Recommendation should be adopted.
Accordingly, it is now ORDERED as follows:
1. The magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation is adopted and incorporated by reference in this order.
2. Plaintiff's constitutional claim brought pursuant to Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971), is DISMISSED as frivolous, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i).
3. Plaintiff's claim construed as based on the Administrative Procedure Act, 5 U.S.C. § 551 et seq., is DISMISSED for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).
DONE AND ORDERED.