From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Moore v. Lappin

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division
Oct 15, 2009
Case No. 3:08cv344/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2009)

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.


Summaries of

Moore v. Lappin

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division
Oct 15, 2009
Case No. 3:08cv344/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2009)

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.

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.

declining to address equitable tolling where the plaintiff did not raise the issue and it was not implied in the complaint

Summary of this case from Meggison v. Bailey

dismissing as frivolous a claim that the plaintiff's due process rights were violated by the sex-offender registration statute because the limitations period had run and his classification as a sex offender requiring registration was not a continuing violation

Summary of this case from Meggison v. Bailey
Case details for

Moore v. Lappin

Case Details

Full title:KEVIN ANTHONY MOORE, Plaintiff, v. HARLEY G. LAPPIN, Director, Federal…

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Pensacola Division

Date published: Oct 15, 2009

Citations

Case No. 3:08cv344/MCR/EMT (N.D. Fla. Oct. 15, 2009)

Citing Cases

Meggison v. Bailey

Plaintiff solely argues that the limitations period should have begun later; therefore, the Court will only…

Nunn v. Tenn. Dep't of Corr.

28, at *2 (D. Kan. Sept. 28, 2013) ("plaintiff knew or should have known of the alleged constitutional…