Springer v. United States, No. 20-3088, 2021 WL 4859636 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2021) (Boyle, J.)
Springer v. United States, No. 20-3088, 2021 WL 4859636 (N.D. Tex. Oct. 19, 2021) (Boyle, J.)
Re: Request for records concerning alleged asbestos exposure and plaintiff's work in warehouse at Federal Correctional Institution in Seagoville, Texas
Disposition: Accepting magistrate judge's findings and conclusions; dismissing plaintiff's complaint
- Litigation Considerations, Mootness and Other Grounds for Dismissal: The court relates that "Plaintiff's complaint challenged only the timing of the BOP's response to his FOIA records request." "And because the BOP subsequently responded to the records request, the Magistrate Judge agreed with the BOP that Plaintiff's claims were mooted." "Plaintiff contests that conclusion, arguing that, because he administratively challenged the adequacy of the BOP's response (though after he filed his complaint) a live controversy remains." "The Court disagrees." The court explains that "an intervening response moots a timeliness challenge." "Plaintiff made no adequacy challenge in his complaint." "Even if he did, any adequacy challenge would be dismissed for failure to exhaust prior to filing suit."
- Procedural Requirements, Responding to FOIA Requests: The court holds that "the Magistrate Judge did not err in rejecting Plaintiff's argument that the Deputy Regional Counsel of the BOP lacked the authority to respond to his FOIA claim because she has not been constitutionally-appointed pursuant to the Appointments Clause." "As noted in the [findings, conclusions, and recommendation], Plaintiff cites no authority for this argument, and the Court has been unable to locate any."