AvuTox, LLC v. Burwell
ORDER adopting 19 Memorandum and Recommendation and granting 14 Second Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction and for Failure to State a Claim - Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 2/27/2017. (Baker, C.)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
NORRIS COCHRAN in his official
capacity as Acting Secretary of the United
States Department of Health and Human
This matter is before the court upon defendant’s motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim (DE 14). Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B), United States
Magistrate Kimberly A. Swank entered the memorandum and recommendation (“M&R”) wherein
it is recommended that the court dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for
failure to state a claim. No objections were filed. Absent a specific and timely filed objection, the
court reviews only for “clear error,” and need not give any explanation for adopting the M&R. See
Diamond v. Colonial Life & Accident Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310, 315 (4th Cir. 2005). Upon careful
review of the record, “the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or
recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).
Upon careful review of the M&R and the record in this matter, the court adopts as its own
the recommendation in the M&R. As correctly determined in the M&R, plaintiff’s claims in this
matter are foreclosed by the Fourth Circuit’s recent decision in Cumberland Cty. Hosp. Sys., Inc.
v. Burwell, 816 F.3d 48, 49 (4th Cir. 2016). Here, as in Cumberland, “[t]he issuance of a judicial
order now . . . directing the Secretary to hear [plaintiff’s] claims in the middle of the administrative
process, would unduly interfere with the process and, at a larger scale, the work of the political
branches.” Id. at 50. Accordingly, plaintiff’s claims seeking writ of mandamus, order directing
administrative action, and declaratory judgment, must be dismissed for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim.
Based on the foregoing, the court ADOPTS the M&R and GRANTS defendant’s motion to
dismiss. Plaintiff’s action is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction
and for failure to state a claim. The clerk is DIRECTED to close this case.
SO ORDERED, this the 27th day of February, 2017.
LOUISE W. FLANAGAN
United States District Judge
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?