Mahmud v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

Eleventh Circuit

Mahmud v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

262 F. App'x 935

CourtCourt of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

DecidedJanuary 16, 2008

Docket07-13311

StatusUnpublished

This text of 262 F. App'x 935 (Mahmud v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mahmud v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security, 262 F. App'x 935 (11th Cir. 2008).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Bilal Mahmud appeals the dismissal of his action. The judgment of the district court was accompanied by a full published opinion, Mahmud v. Ober *936 man, 508 F.Supp.2d 1294 (2007). In his complaint, Mahmud asserted claims which he sought to establish under the Bivens v. Six Unknomi Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics doctrine, 403 U.S. 388, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), based upon the suspension or revocation of the Hazardous Materials Endorsement on his commercial drivers license. Based on the facts of this case, the district court held that a Bivens remedy for damages was not available to Mahmud, and, furthermore, Mahmud had not met his burden of establishing that due process is satisfied by the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellee Justin P. Oberman. It granted Oberman’s motion to dismiss for both reasons.

Having carefully considered the judgment and opinion of the district court, the briefs of the parties, and the record, and finding no reversible error, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

PER CURIAM:

Plaintiff-appellant Bilal Mahmud appeals the dismissal of his action. The judgment of the district court was accompanied by a full published opinion, Mahmud v. Ober *936 man, 508 F.Supp.2d 1294 (2007). In his complaint, Mahmud asserted claims which he sought to establish under the Bivens v. Six Unknomi Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics doctrine, 403 U.S. 388, 397, 91 S.Ct. 1999, 29 L.Ed.2d 619 (1971), based upon the suspension or revocation of the Hazardous Materials Endorsement on his commercial drivers license. Based on the facts of this case, the district court held that a Bivens remedy for damages was not available to Mahmud, and, furthermore, Mahmud had not met his burden of establishing that due process is satisfied by the exercise of personal jurisdiction over defendant-appellee Justin P. Oberman. It granted Oberman’s motion to dismiss for both reasons.

Having carefully considered the judgment and opinion of the district court, the briefs of the parties, and the record, and finding no reversible error, the judgment is AFFIRMED.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

262 F. App'x 935, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mahmud-v-us-department-of-homeland-security-ca11-2008.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack