REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

BRISTOW MARCHANT, Magistrate Judge.

This pro se case was removed to this Court by the Defendant on August 20, 2017. Prior to that time, the case had been pending in state court since August 26, 2015. The Defendant removed this case after Plaintiff filed a document titled "Amendment" on August 29, 2017 in which he stated that the Defendant's restriction of his visitation privileges violated his Fourteenth Amendment rights. Prior to that time, Plaintiffs claims (which he continues to also assert) only alleged violations of state law.

On March 9, 2018, the Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of Plaintiffs federal claim.1 As the Plaintiff is proceeding pro se, a Roseboro Order was entered by the Court on March 12, 2018, advising Plaintiff of the importance of a dispositive motion and of the need for him to file an adequate response. Plaintiff was specifically advised that if he failed to file a properly supported response, the Defendant's motion may be granted. However, notwithstanding the specific warning and instructions as set forth in the Court's Roseboro order, the Plaintiff has failed to respond to the motion other than to file a "motion for trial". Plaintiff further asks in his "motion" that this Court only address the "amended" portions of his claim in issuing any order, and that his original claims be transferred "back to the state court for Judge Cooper to rule upon. . . ."

Defendant argues in her motion, inter alia, that Plaintiff's federal visitation claim should be dismissed as moot, because Plaintiff only requested injunctive relief and he has now been released and is no long in custody. A review of Plaintiff's amendment confirms that he only seeks declaratory or injunctive relief with respect to this claim. See Court Docket No. 1-1, pp. 85-89. Therefore, the undersigned agrees with the Defendant that this claim should be dismissed. See Incumaa v. Ozmint, 507 F.3d 281, 287 (4th Cir. 2007) ["Once an inmate is removed from the environment in which he is subjected to the challenged policy or practice, absent a claim for damages, he no longer has a legally cognizable interest in a judicial decision on the merits of his claim"], cert. denied, 128 S.Ct. 2056 (2008); see also Williams v. Griffith, 952 F.2d 820 (4th Cir. 1991).

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, it is recommended that the Defendant's motion for summary judgment be granted, and that Plaintiff's federal claim challenging the prison's visitation policy be dismissed. Plaintiff's remaining state law claims should then be remanded back to state court for disposition. Mills, 709 F.Supp. at 675-676.

The parties are referred to the Notice Page attached hereto.