Machnik v. Jewell et al

Filing 39

ORDER granting deft's 31 Motion to Strike Jury Demand, and the jury demand set forth in plft's 4 Amended Complaint is hereby stricken. Signed by District Judge Martin Reidinger on 12/21/17. (Pro se litigant served by US Mail.)(emw)

THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
ASHEVILLE DIVISION
CIVIL CASE NO. 1:16-cv-00104-MR-DLH

PATRICIA BLOKER MACHNIK,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
vs.
)
)
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_______________________________ )

ORDER

THIS MATTER is before the Court on the Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Jury Demand. [Doc. 31].
The Defendant moves to strike the jury demand set forth in the
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint. [Doc. 31]. The Plaintiff asserts claims under
the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b)(1), 2671-2680 (“FTCA”).
Title 28 of the United States Code, Section 2402 provides that FTCA actions
are to be tried without a jury. 28 U.S.C. § 2402; Carlson v. Green, 446 U.S.
14, 22 (1980) (“a plaintiff cannot opt for a jury in a FTCA action”).
IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Defendant’s Motion to Strike
Jury Demand [Doc. 31] is GRANTED, and the jury demand set forth in the
Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint [Doc. 4] is hereby STRICKEN.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Signed: December 21, 2017

2