Strickland v. Danzig, et al

*Pursuant to 5TH CIR. R. 47.5, the court has determined that
this opinion should not be published and is not precedent except
under the limited circumstances set forth in 5TH CIR. R. 47.5.4.
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
_____________________
No. 00-60117
Summary Calendar
_____________________
MICHAEL D. STRICKLAND,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
versus
RICHARD DANZIG, Secretary of
the Navy; DANIEL T. OLIVER,
Vice Admiral, Chief of Personnel;
RICHARD LOTH, Commander,
Commanding Officer, Special Boat
Unit Twenty-Two, LCDR;
R. E. MILLER, Officer in Charge,
Personnel Support Detachment Gulfport,
Defendants-Appellees.
_________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the
Southern District of Mississippi
USDC No. 1:99-CV-242-GR
_________________________________________________________________
October 9, 2000
Before JOLLY, WIENER, and PARKER, Circuit Judges.
PER CURIAM:*
Richard D. Strickland appeals the district court’s summary
judgment dismissal of a complaint challenging his administrative
discharge from the Navy. Strickland was administratively processed
and discharged as the result of a plea of nolo contendere in

-- 1 of 2 --

2
civilian court to indecent exposure. On appeal, he argues that the
Navy failed to follow its own regulations and it violated his
constitutional right to due process during the discharge
proceedings. He also argues that the district court erred when it
denied his request for a permanent injunction.
Strickland has failed to exhaust his administrative remedy
before the Board for Correction of Naval Records. See 10 U.S.C.
§ 1552; Woodard v. Marsh, 658 F.2d 989, 992 (5th Cir. 1981); Von
Hoffburg v. Alexander, 615 F.2d 633, 637-38 (5th Cir. 1980); Mindes
v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197, 201 (5th Cir. 1971). Accordingly, his
appeal and complaint are dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See
Hodges v. Callaway, 499 F.2d 417, 421 (5th Cir. 1974).
Strickland’s appeal of the district court’s denial of his request
for a permanent injunction is moot. He complained that if he were
discharged it would cause irreparable damage to his career in the
Navy. Strickland already has been discharged from the service.
Thus, the harm he sought to prevent already has occurred, and the
injunctive remedy is moot. See McClelland v. Gronwaldt, 155 F.3d
507, 514 (5th Cir. 1998).
APPEAL DISMISSED.

-- 2 of 2 --