Vaughn v. Vilsack

Filing 21

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER...IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff's Objection to Jurisdiction and Order (ECF No. 20 ), which the Court construes as a motion to strike the Case Management Order, is DENIED. Signed by District Judge Ronnie L. White on 8/28/2014. (NEB)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION

BILL VAUGHN,
Plaintiff,
vs.
TOM J. VILSACK,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No. 4:13CV2427 RLW

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs Objection to Jurisdiction and Order. (ECF No.
20). Therein, Plaintiff erroneously contends that the undersigned is "a person of magistrate [and]
lacks jurisdiction to issue orders to Plaintiff, the sovereign of this court of record." Plaintiff
maintains that the undersigned lacks jurisdiction to issue orders without Plaintiffs consent and
that the Court's Case Management Order (ECF No. 19) is void on its face. The Court construes
Plaintiffs Objection to Jurisdiction and Order as a motion to strike the Case Management Order.
Plaintiff incorrectly believes that the undersigned is a magistrate judge. Plaintiff is correct
that his consent would be required for a magistrate judge to hear his case. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 73;
28 U.S.C. §636(c). The undersigned, however, is a judge pursuant to Article III of the U.S.
Constitution. Pursuant to Article III, Section 2 of the U.S. Constitution, this Court's "judicial
power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the
United States ... [and] to controversies to which the United States shall be a party ... " Because
this case is against a federal department and alleges a claim pursuant to a federal statute, this Court
has jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims. See Complaint, ECF No. 11, ~1 (alleging a claim against
Tom J. Vilsack, as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Agriculture, under Title VII of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e, for employment discrimination). This Court, therefore,

has full and complete jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims and his consent is not required for
adjudication of the merits of his case.
Accordingly,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Objection to Jurisdiction and Order (ECF No.
20), which the Court construes as a motion to strike the Case Management Order, is DENIED.

Dated this~day of August, 2014.

RONNIE L. WHITE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE