Ball v. United States of America (MAG+)(LEAD)

Filing 19

ORDERED as follows: 1) Vanessa R. Ball's 18 Objection is OVERRULED; 2) The 15 Recommendation is ADOPTED; 3) The United States's 2 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; 4) Vanessa R. Ball's complaints against the US are DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 5/7/2015. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
NORTHERN DIVISION
VANESSA R. BALL,
Plaintiff,
v.
UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 2:14-CV-938-WKW
[LEAD CASE]
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-939-WKW
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-940-WKW
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-941-WKW
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-942-WKW
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-943-WKW
[MEMBER CASES]

ORDER
On February 26, 2015, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this
case. (Doc. # 15.) On April 9, 2015, Plaintiff Vanessa R. Ball filed a timely
Objection. (Doc. # 18.) The court has conducted an independent and de novo
review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See
28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
Ms. Ball’s Objection is largely devoted to restating arguments she proffered
in her state-court complaints, arguments which the Recommendation directly
addressed. Ms. Ball’s repeated assertions that her state-court complaints against
various former co-workers should not have been removed and that the United
States should not have been substituted as the named Defendant remain
unsupported by statute, case law, and the record.

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §

2679(d)(1), the United States certified that Defendant employees were acting

within the scope of their “employment at the time of the incident out of which the
claim arose.” § 2679(d)(1). Further, Ms. Ball acknowledges that the entirety of
events that serve as the basis for her complaints occurred during the course of her
employment with the Federal Bureau of Investigation. While Ms. Ball thoroughly
reiterates her allegations concerning her individual former co-workers, her
Objection fails to cure or otherwise address the complaints’ deficiencies regarding
this court’s lack of subject-matter jurisdiction, as cited and elaborated upon by the
Magistrate Judge in his Recommendation. For these reasons, Ms. Ball’s Objection
(Doc. # 18) is due to be overruled.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Vanessa R. Ball’s Objection (Doc. # 18) is OVERRULED.

2.

The Recommendation (Doc. # 15) is ADOPTED.

3.

The United States’s Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 2) is GRANTED.

4.

Vanessa R. Ball’s complaints against the United States are

DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 7th day of May, 2015.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2