Talbot et al v. Shinseki
Filing
5
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Signed by Judge Dana L. Christensen on 9/22/2014. (APP, ) Copy mailed to Plaintiffs
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION
CV 14-127-M-DLC
LIONEL TALBOT, NANCY
TALBOT, MARIO TALBOT, and
GEORGE SULLIVAN,
Plaintiffs,
ORDER
vs.
FILED
DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS
AFFAIRS, et aI.,
SEP 22 201~
Clerk, u.s Oistrtct Court
DistricI Of Montana
Missoula
Defendants.
United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and
Recommendation on July 8, 2014, recommending that Plaintiffs' claims against
Defendants be dismissed because the Court lacks jurisdiction over this action.
Plaintiffs failed to timely object to the Findings and Recommendation, and so
waived the right to de novo review of the record. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The
Court will therefore review the record for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp.
v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309,1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error
exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). The
Court adopts Judge Lynch's findings and recommendation in full.
-1
The Plaintiffs are all pro se litigants. However, Lionel Talbot is the only
Plaintiff who signed the complaint and the motion. (Doc. 2 at 8.) As a non
attorney, pro se litigant, Lionel Talbot cannot represent "anyone other than
himself." Russell v. Us., 308 F.2d 78,79 (9th Cir. 1962) (citing Carrigan v. Cal.
St. Legis. et al, 263 F.2d 560 (9th Cir. 1959». Therefore, Judge Lynch correctly
construed the Complaint as brought in Lionel Talbot's name only.
Because Plaintiff moved to proceed in forma pauperis, Judge Lynch
conducted a preliminary screening of the complaint under Title 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2). Judge Lynch then examined whether the Court has jurisdiction over
this action. FW/PBS, Inc. v. City ofDallas, 493 U.S. 215,231 (1990). Plaintiffs
claims involve the alleged denial of veterans' benefits. Such claims are outside
the jurisdiction of the Court because Congress has granted "exclusive jurisdiction
over claims affecting veterans' benefits" to the United States Court of Appeals for
Veterans Claims and the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Veterans for
Common Sense v. Shinseki, 678 F.3d 1013, 1016 (9th Cir. 2012); See also 38
U.S.C. §§ 511, 7252, 7292. Therefore, there is no clear error in Judge Lynch's
recommendation that Plaintiffs Complaint be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction.
IT IS ORDERED that Judge Lynch's Findings and Recommendation
(Doc. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
-2
The Complaint (Doc. 2) is DISMISSED. The Clerk of Court shall enter
judgment in favor of Defendants and against Plaintiff. This case is CLOSED.
DATED this
2z..~ay ofSeptemb
2014.
Dana L. Christensen, Chief J dge
United States District Court
-3
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?