Watson v. The United States of America et al
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
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?