Bowhall v. Department of Defense et al

Filing 8

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+)

Doc. 8

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).

1

Dockets.Justia.com

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

2

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

3