Bowhall v. Department of Defense et al
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION; that 1. Plaintiff's Objections ( 6 , 7 ) are OVERRULED; 2. Plaintiff's Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to Continue 7 is DENIED; 3. The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation 5 is ADOPTE D; 4. Plaintiff's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis 2 is GRANTED; 5. Plaintiff's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). An appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 11/18/2010. (jg, )
Bowhall v. Department of Defense et al (MAG+)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT F O R THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION W IL L IA M E. BOWHALL, P la in tif f , v. D E P A R T M E N T OF DEFENSE, et al., D e f e n d a n ts. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
CASE NO. 2:10-CV-607-WKW [WO]
O R D E R ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION O n September 22, 2010, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation in th is case. (Doc. # 5.) On October 6, 2010, Plaintiff William E. Bowhall1 filed a Motion to P ro c e e d - In Pro-Se, which after review, the court construes as an objection. (Doc. # 6.) On N o v e m b e r 15, 2010, Mr Bowhall filed a Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to C o n tin u e (Doc. # 7), along with "supporting" documents. The court has conducted a de novo re v ie w of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection is made. See 2 8 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). T h e Magistrate Judge concluded that Mr. Bowhall's claims against all Defendants, e x c e p t the City of Opelika, are barred by sovereign immunity. Mr. Bowhall objects, arguing
Mr. Bowhall has filed eight other civil actions in this court. See Bowhall v. Johnson & Johnson, No. 2:10cv601-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Capitol-EMI Records, Inc., No. 2:10cv603WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Office of James M. Deiman, et al., No. 2:10cv604-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Howell High Sch. Bd. of Educ., No. 2:10cv605-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Viacom, Inc., et al., No. 2:10cv606-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. NBC, Inc., No. 2:10cv608-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. Obama, No. 2:10cv609-WKW (July 14, 2010); Bowhall v. NAACP Beverly Hills, No. 2:10cv679-WKW (Aug. 10, 2010).
that "[i]t is this Plaintiffs [sic] opinion that sovereign immunity does not exist, nor should it b e allowed to exist where the welfare of the UNITED STATES is at risk." (Doc. # 6, at 3.) Plaintiff can rest assured that sovereign immunity does indeed exist. See, e.g., United States v . Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 586 (1941) ("The United States, as sovereign, is immune from s u it save as it consents to be sued."). Furthermore, the court is aware of no law abrogating th e sovereign immunity of the United States when its welfare is at risk. Nor is the court c o n v in c e d , were such a law in place, that the United States' welfare would be at risk, even ta k in g as true all of Mr. Bowhall's allegations. With respect to Mr. Bowhall's claims against the City of Opelika, the Magistrate J u d g e found them to be time-barred. (Doc. # 5, at 9.) As has become Mr. Bowhall's habit, h e has responded to the Magistrate Judge's finding without argument, but instead with a v a g u e rhetorical question: "Where does the statue [sic] of limitations begin, or end in a life lo n g struggle for justice?" (Doc. # 6, at 5.) With the little information that Mr. Bowhall does p ro v id e as to his claims against the City of Opelika, it is clear that he is complaining of a c tio n s from 2001 to 2004. (Doc. # 1, at 8.) Mr. Bowhall's claims, all of them at least six ye a rs old, are stale. (Doc. # 5, at 8.) F in ally, Mr. Bowhall's "Supplementals" provided in his Motion for Extension of Time a n d Motion to Continue (Doc. # 7), consisting primarily of off-topic cases and Yahoo! search re s u lts , do not address in any way the Magistrate Judge's conclusions discussed above. To th e extent that these are objections, they are due to be overruled. To the extent that this is a
motion to extend the deadline in which to file objections, that motion is due to be denied. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows: 1. 2. P la in tif f 's Objections (Docs. # 6, 7) are OVERRULED; P la in tif f 's Motion for Extension of Time and Motion to Continue (Doc. # 7) is DENIED; 3. T h e Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 5) is A DO PTED ; 4. 5. P la in tif f 's Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. # 2) is GRANTED; P la in tif f 's claims against Defendants are DISMISSED without prejudice prior to service of process pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i)-(iii). An appropriate judgment will be entered. DONE this 18th day of November, 2010. /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?