GARNER v. LUNDBERG, et al.
ORDER granting 3 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. This action is dismissed without prejudice. Ordered by US DISTRICT JUDGE CLAY D LAND on 10/02/2017. (CCL)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATIYA D. GARNER,
CASE NO. 4:17-CV-182 (CDL)
AUDREY G. MARSHALL LUNDBERG,
ELIZABETH A. GEORGE, and UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA,
O R D E R
Plaintiff Atiya Garner brought this action in the Superior
Court of Muscogee County against Defendants Audrey G. Marshall
Lundberg and Elizabeth A. George.
Garner alleges that Marshall
Both Lundberg and George are federal employees of
Martin Army Community Hospital.
After Defendants removed the
action to this Court, the United States of America certified
Notice of Substitution, ECF No. 2.
Based on that
certification, the United States has been substituted as the
Defendant in this action under 28 U.S.C. § 2679(d).
motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3).
Under the law, Garner “shall
not” bring an action against the United States until she first
presents “the claim to the appropriate Federal agency” and her
claim is “finally denied by the agency in writing and sent by
certified or registered mail.”
28 U.S.C. § 2675(a).
Garner has filed a claim with the Department of the Army, that
claim is still pending, and Garner has not received a final
denial of the claim.
Therefore, as Garner acknowledges, Garner
has not exhausted her administrative remedies as required by the
The Court thus concludes that it lacks jurisdiction to
entertain this action.
See McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S.
106, 113 (1993) (affirming dismissal of Federal Tort Claims Act
Accordingly, the Government’s motion to dismiss (ECF No. 3) is
granted, and Garner’s claims are dismissed without prejudice.
IT IS SO ORDERED, this 2nd day of October, 2017.
S/Clay D. Land
CLAY D. LAND
CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
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?