Robbins v. United States Department of Defense et al (MAG+)
ORDER that: 1. Plaintiff's objection 21 is OVERRULED; 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 20 is ADOPTED; 3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 13 is GRANTED; and 4. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/24/2012. (jg, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
ALLEN WALTER ROBBINS,
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT
OF DEFENSE and UNITED STATES )
DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY,
CASE NO. 2:11-CV-567-WKW
On June 28, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation
(Doc. # 20) regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13). Plaintiff filed a
timely objection. (Doc. # 21.) The court reviews de novo the portion of the
Recommendation to which the objection applies. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the
reasons that follow, the objection is due to be overruled and the Recommendation
Plaintiff’s objection reiterates that the court should grant him the relief he seeks
and asserts that all the allegations in his complaint are true. In the Report and
Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge properly accepted the complaint’s allegations
as true and construed Plaintiff’s complaint liberally to determine the claims Plaintiff
attempted to plead. See Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008)
(When evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must take
“the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff.”); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting
Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be
liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held
to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”). Even
accepting the allegations as true and construing the complaint liberally, the Magistrate
Judge found no claim over which the court had jurisdiction or could afford relief.
Plaintiff’s objection does not remedy his complaint’s deficiencies.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:
Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 21) is OVERRULED;
the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 20) is ADOPTED;
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13) is GRANTED; and
Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 24th day of July, 2012.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF 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?