Major Ronald L. Malony v. Honorable James Schlesinger Honorable Howard H. Callaway, & Gen. Creighton Abrams, 488 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1974). · Go Syfert
Search
Major Ronald L. Malony v. Honorable James Schlesinger Honorable Howard H. Callaway, & Gen. Creighton Abrams, 488 F.2d 521 (5th Cir. 1974). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
1 citation event across 1 distinct court.
Strongest positive: Casby v. LeBlanc (laed, 2021-05-24)
Top citers, strongest first. 1 distinct citer. How cited ↗
cited Cited as authority (rule) Casby v. LeBlanc
E.D. La. · 2021 · confidence medium
The granting of the relief sought by a plaintiffM ianl ohnisy vc.o Smcphlleasinintg teyrpically removes the case or th controversy and renders a lawsuit moot. , 488 F.2d 521, 522 (5 Cir. 1974).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Major Ronald L. MALONY, Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
Honorable James SCHLESINGER Honorable Howard H. Callaway, and General Creighton Abrams, Defendants-Appellees
73-3286.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Jan 14, 1974.
488 F.2d 521
Vincent P. McCauley, Columbus, Ga., for plaintiff-appellant., William J. Schloth, U. S. Atty., Charles T. Erion, Asst. U. S. Atty., Royce C. Lamberth, Captain, JAGC, U. S. Army, C/O U. S. Atty., Macon, Ga., for defendants-appellees.
Brown, Dyer, Per Curiam, Simpson.
Cited by 1 opinion  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

After being advised that he was to be released from active duty as a commissioned officer in the U. S. Army, Appellant Malony sought a Court declaration regarding his right to retain his status as a commissioned officer or in the alternative to be accepted for reenlistment. At a hearing held by the District Court on May 7, 1973 the appellee, through a member of the Adjutant General’s Office, informed the Court that the Depart[*522] ment of the Army offered to enlist Ma-lony under the provisions of 1Ó U.S.C.A. § 3258. Since appellant’s alternative relief had been granted, the Court dismissed the suit as moot. We affirm.

The Department of the Army’s action in granting the appellant the relief which he requested in his complaint, removed the case and controversy thereby rendering the law suit moot. The District Court followed the correct procedure in dismissing a case by reason of mootness. Troy State University v. Dickey, 5 Cir., 1968, 402 F.2d 515, 516-517; Lebus, Regional Director v. Seafarers’ Int’l Union, 5 Cir., 1968, 398 F.2d 281, 283.

Affirmed.