Agee v. Department of the Army et al (JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)

Filing 45

ORDER: it is ORDERED that the 44 Recommendation is ADOPTED and that this case is DISMISSED without prejudice; DIRECTING the Clerk to construe Plf's purported 41 motion as a response to Dfts' 38 Motion to Dismiss, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 12/17/2018. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
MARILYN AGEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
and MARK T. ESPER, Secretary
of the Army,
Defendants.
MARILYN AGEE,
Plaintiff,
v.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY,
and MARK T. ESPER, Secretary
of the Army,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-116-WKW

CASE NO. 1:18-CV-473-WKW

ORDER
On November 20, 2018, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation to
which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 44.) Upon an independent
review of the record and upon consideration of the Recommendation, it is
ORDERED that the Recommendation (Doc. # 44) is ADOPTED and that this case
is DISMISSED without prejudice.

Additionally, Plaintiff responded to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss by filing
a document she titled Motion Not to Dismiss Case (Doc. # 41). Defendants’ motion
was filed pursuant to Rules (12)(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, but there is no procedural rule that allows a motion not to dismiss the
case.

Instead, this purported motion is properly construed as a response to

Defendants’ motion. The Clerk of the Court is DIRECTED to construe Plaintiff’s
purported motion (Doc. # 41) as a response to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc.
# 38).
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 17th day of December, 2018.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2