Wonders v. Crutchfield et al (MAG+)

Filing 35

ORDERED that the 33 Recommendation is ADOPTED; it is ORDERED as follows: (1) The 13 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED, and Plf's due process Bivens claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted as to Dfts in any capacity and as to Dfts in their individual capacities on the basis of qualified immunity; (2) Plf's 17 Motion to Rescind Bar to Entry onto Fort Rucker Pending Final Adjudication of the Case is DENIED; (3) Plf's 32 &qu ot;Addendum to Opposition to Dfts' Motion to Dismiss," construed as a Motion for Leave to Amend the Complaint to State a Violation of Procedural due Process in the Revocation of Plf's Security Clearance, is DENIED as futile; (4) This a ction is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for entry of an order allowing Plf an opportunity to amend his complaint and providing him with direction about how to do so in a manner to permit orderly disposition of his claims. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 3/4/2013. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist) (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARK GERAGHTY WONDERS,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
) CASE NO. 1:12-CV-514-WKW
)
[WO]
ANTHONY CRUTCHFIELD, Major
)
General, and JAMES MUSKOPF, Colonel, )
)
Defendants.
)
ORDER
There being no objections filed to the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge

(Doc. # 33), and upon an independent review of the file in this case, it is ORDERED
that the Recommendation is ADOPTED. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
(1)

The motion to dismiss (Doc. # 13) is GRANTED, and Plaintiff’s due

process Bivens claims are DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted as to Defendants in any capacity and as to Defendants in
their individual capacities on the basis of qualified immunity.
(2)

Plaintiff’s Motion to Rescind Bar to Entry onto Fort Rucker Pending

Final Adjudication of the Case (Doc. # 17) is DENIED.
(3)

Plaintiff’s “Addendum to Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss”

(Doc. # 32), construed as a motion for leave to amend the complaint to state a

violation of procedural due process in the revocation of Plaintiff’s security clearance,
is DENIED as futile.
(4)

This action is REFERRED back to the Magistrate Judge for entry of an

order allowing Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his complaint and providing him
with direction about how to do so in a manner to permit orderly disposition of his
claims.
DONE this 4th day of March, 2013.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2