Huberty v. The United States of America et al (MAG+)
ORDERED that: (1) Huberty's 9 objections are overruled; and (2) the 8 Recommendation that this case be dismissed prior to service of process for lack of jurisdiction is ADOPTED and the case is DISMISSED for lack of personal jurisdiction. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 7/14/09. (Attachments: # 1 Civil Appeals Checklist)(sl, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION D O N A L D M. HUBERTY, P la in tif f , v. T H E UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
C A S E NO. 2:09-CV-350-WKW
ORDER O n June 24, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a recommendation that this case be d is m is s e d prior to service of process. (Doc. # 8.) The recommendation concluded that P la in tif f Donald M. Huberty's complaint insufficiently alleged jurisdiction. Huberty objected to the recommendation in the form of a motion. (Doc. # 9.) The portions of the
re c o m m e n d a tio n to which a party objects are reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). A de novo review of the record and law confirms that the recommendation (Doc. # 8) is due to be adopted. As the recommendation finds, the complaint fails to include a "short a n d plain statement of the grounds for the court's jurisdiction," Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1), that a d e q u a te ly alleges personal jurisdiction.1 A c c o rd in g ly, it is ORDERED that: (1 ) H u b e rty's objections (Doc. # 9) are OVERRULED; and
The recommendation noted also the absence of subject-matter jurisdiction. In his objections, Huberty lists federal constitutional amendments that allegedly form the basis for his complaint.
T h e recommendation (Doc. # 8) that the case be dismissed prior to service of
p r o c e s s for lack of jurisdiction is ADOPTED, and the case is DISMISSED for lack of p e rs o n a l jurisdiction. D O N E this 14th day of July, 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?