Watson v. The United States of America et al

Filing 14

ORDER that Mr. Watson's 12 objection is OVERRULED; that 11 Report and Recommendations is ADOPTED; that Mr. Watson's 13 motion for leave to amend his complaint is DENIED; that Mr. Watson's claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to establish federal subject matter jurisdiction; that all pending motions ( 9 , 10 and 13 ) are DENIED as moot. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 9/10/2009. (cc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION T E D D Y A. WATSON, P la in tif f , v. T H E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, e t al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 2:09-CV-19-WKW

ORDER O n August 18, 2009 the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation in this c a s e . (Doc. # 11.) On August 31, 2009, Plaintiff Teddy A. Watson filed an objection. (Doc. # 12.) The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the R e c o m m e n d a tio n to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). M r. Watson was given multiple opportunities (Docs. # 4, 7) by the Magistrate Judge to amend his complaint to provide a short and plain statement of his claims, in conformance to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. He repeatedly failed to do so. Moreover, for the re a s o n s given by the Magistrate Judge, Mr. Watson's complaint fails to adequately establish a basis for federal subject matter jurisdiction. M r. Watson's objection largely fails to take issue with specific findings in the M a g is tra te Judge's report. To the extent the objection raises new factual assertions, they c o m e too late to revive his claims. See Williams v. McNeil, 57 F.3d 1287, 1292 (11th Cir. 2 0 0 9 ) (holding that arguments not presented before the Magistrate Judge need not be

considered by the district court). Even were Mr. Watson's assertions to be considered in full, th e y would not suffice to cure the deficiencies in his complaint cited in the Magistrate J u d g e 's report. A c c o rd in g ly, it is ORDERED that: (1 ) Mr. Watson's objection (Doc. # 12) is OVERRULED; (2 ) The Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 11) is ADOPTED; (3 ) Mr. Watson's motion for leave to amend his complaint (Doc. # 13) is DENIED; (4) Mr. Watson's claims are DISMISSED, without prejudice, for failure to establish f e d e ra l subject matter jurisdiction, and; (5 ) All pending motions (Docs. # 9, 10, 13) are DENIED as moot. D O N E this 10th day of September, 2009. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2