Opinion
No. 318, 1998.
Decided: December 8, 1998.
Chancery CA 15635.
Affirmed.
Unpublished Opinion is below.
DAVID W. WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff Below-Appellant, v. STAN TAYLOR, SHERESE CARR, RAPHAEL WILLIAMS, MARY COOPER, LT. HAMILTON, SGT. PRITCHET, CPL. TAYLOR, C/O LYNN BROWN, and ALL OTHER OFFICERS, Defendants Below-Appellees. No. 318, 1998. In the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware. Submitted: November 13, 1998. Decided: December 8, 1998.
Before VEASEY, Chief Justice, WALSH, and HOLLAND, Justices.
ORDER
This 8th day of December 1998, upon consideration of the appellant's opening brief and the appellees' motion to affirm, it appears to the Court that:
(1) The appellant, David Williamson, filed this appeal from a Court of Chancery ruling that dismissed his complaint as moot. The appellees, who are Department of Correction officials and employees, have filed a motion to affirm the Court of Chancery's ruling on the ground that it is manifest on the face of Williamson's opening brief that his appeal is without merit. See Supr. Ct. R. 25(a).
Williamson filed a response to the appellees' motion to affirm. Such a response is not permitted unless specifically requested by the Court. See Supr. Ct. R. 25(a). Williamson's response therefore is deemed to be stricken from the record as a nonconforming document. See Supr. Ct. R. 34.
(2) Williamson is incarcerated at the Multi-Purpose Criminal Justice Facility. He, along with several other inmates, filed a complaint in the Court of Chancery asserting violations of their constitutional and civil rights. Among other things, the plaintiffs requested declaratory and injunctive relief. They also requested an award of both compensatory and punitive damages. (3) The defendants filed a motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint. The motion was assigned to the Master in Chancery to make findings and recommendations. The Master recommended that the plaintiffs' complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and mootness. Among other things, the Master found that the plaintiffs all had been transferred out of the prison cell block of which they were complaining and that the correctional officer of whose conduct the plaintiffs complained also had been transferred to another assignment and no longer had contact with any of the plaintiffs. The Master therefore concluded in part that the plaintiffs' claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot. The Master also concluded that the plaintiffs had an adequate remedy at law for their claim for monetary damages.
(4) The plaintiffs filed exceptions to several of the rulings contained in the Master's final report, although they did not file an exception to the Master's ruling on their claim for monetary damages. The Vice-Chancellor did not adopt all of the Master's legal conclusions but did adopt the Master's recommendation to dismiss the complaint on the ground that the plaintiffs' claims were moot. Furthermore, the Vice-Chancellor noted that he did not review the Master's recommendation regarding plaintiffs' claim for monetary damages because the plaintiffs had not filed an exception to that recommendation.
(5) Williamson was the only plaintiff to properly perfect an appeal from the Court of Chancery's decision. Having considered Williamson's opening brief and the State's motion to affirm, this Court has concluded that this matter should be affirmed on the basis of the Court of Chancery's well-reasoned opinion dated June 15, 1998. The issue on appeal, i.e. whether Williamson's claims are moot, is clearly controlled by settled Delaware law. See General Motors Corp. v. New Castle County, Del. Supr., 701 A.2d 819, 823-24 (1997).
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED that the State's motion to affirm is GRANTED. The judgment of the Court of Chancery is AFFIRMED.