Raymond Bradley Nottingham, Jr v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 1971 . - 2 - PER…

UNPUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT
No. 04-7838
RAYMOND BRADLEY NOTTINGHAM, JR.,
Plaintiff - Appellant,
versus
SHERILL,
Defendant - Appellee.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Norfolk. Raymond A. Jackson, District
Judge. (CA-04-402-2)
Submitted: March 30, 2005 Decided: May 17, 2005
Before WILKINSON and SHEDD, Circuit Judges, and HAMILTON, Senior
Circuit Judge.
Affirmed in part; vacated and remanded in part by unpublished per
curiam opinion.
Raymond Bradley Nottingham, Jr., Appellant Pro Se.
Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.
See Local Rule 36(c).

-- 1 of 3 --

*Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of
Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971).
- 2 -
PER CURIAM:
Raymond Bradley Nottingham, Jr., appeals the district
court’s order denying relief on his Bivens * complaint pursuant to
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b)(1) (2000). After a thorough review of the
record, we conclude that Nottingham should have been permitted to
amend his complaint as a matter of right under Federal Rule of
Civil Procedure 15(a) because no responsive pleading had been
filed. Thus, even though he sought leave to amend, he actually did
not need to do so. See Domino Sugar Corp. v. Sugar Workers Local
Union 392, 10 F.3d 1064, 1068 n.1 (4th Cir. 1993); Smith v.
Blackledge, 451 F.2d 1201, 1202-03 (4th Cir. 1971). We therefore
vacate the district court’s order to the extent that it impliedly
denied Nottingham’s motion to amend his complaint, and we remand
the case for consideration of the amended complaint.
We affirm on mootness grounds the denial of Nottingham’s
claims for declaratory and injunctive relief because he has since
been transferred to a federal correctional institution. Finally,
Nottingham’s claim that Defendant Sherill delayed his parole
revocation hearing by ordering that he be placed in administrative
segregation is conclusory and, because it was raised for the first
time on appeal, is not properly before this court. Muth v. United
States, 1 F.3d 246, 250 (4th Cir. 1993) (holding that claims raised

-- 2 of 3 --

- 3 -
for the first time on appeal will not be considered absent
exceptional circumstances, such as plain error). We dispense with
oral argument because the facts and legal contentions are
adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument
would not aid the decisional process.
AFFIRMED IN PART;
VACATED AND REMANDED IN PART

-- 3 of 3 --