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, )

Download PDF
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

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?