Geohegan v. Secretary of the Army
Filing
16
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court rules as follows: (1) The R&R (Docket No. 13) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED; (2) Defendants Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or, Alternatively, for Failure to State a Claim is hereby GRANTED; (3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE; The Clerk of the Court shall enter Final Judgment in a separate document in accordance with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Signed by Chief Judge Kevin H. Sharp on 3/13/2015. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(eh)
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
PAUL E. GEOHEGAN,
Plaintiff,
v.
SECRETARY OF THE ARMY,
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
Civil No. 3:14-cv-00966
Judge Sharp
ORDER
Plaintiff Paul E. Geohegan, proceeding pro se, has filed this action pursuant to 10 U.S.C.
§ 1552, which authorizes the Secretary of a military department to correct military records. He
appeals the Army Board for Correction of Military Records’ (“ABCMR”) decision to deny his
request to consider his application. Defendant Secretary of the Army has filed a Motion to
Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction or, Alternatively, for
Failure to State a Claim pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) and/or 12(b)(6) to which Plaintiff
has failed to respond in opposition.
Magistrate Judge Knowles has issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Docket
No. 13) in which he recommends that Defendant’s Motion be granted and this case be dismissed.
Despite being advised that any objection needed to be filed within fourteen days, Plaintiff has
filed none.
In accordance with Rule 72 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Court has
conducted a de novo review of the record, and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the six-year statute of limitations applicable to judicial review of
1
a final administrative decision set forth in 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). See Friends of Tims Ford v.
Tennessee Valley Authority, 585 F.3d 985, 964 (6th Cir. 2009) (citations omitted) (“A complaint
under the APA for review of an agency action is a ‘civil action’ within the meaning of 28 U.S.C.
§ 2401(a), and is governed by a six-year statute of limitations.”). See also, Piersall v. Winter,
435 F.3d 319, 323-24 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (Claims challenging the decisions of military boards for
the correction of records are subject to judicial review under the APA). Specifically, the
Magistrate Judge found that because “Plaintiff’s six year limitation period began to run with the
agency’s [final] denial of his case in 2006, and ended six years later, in 2012,” Plaintiff’s April
10, 2014 complaint initiating the present case was time-barred. (Docket No. 13). Accord Friends
of Tims Ford, 585 F.3d at 964 (finding that the limitations period begins to run from the time of
the agency’s final action, which occurs when the agency has completed its decision-making
process.) The Magistrate Judge correctly found that Plaintiff’s complaint was filed six years
after the ABCMR’s final decision denying Plaintiff’s application, and, as a result, is barred by
the applicable statute of limitations.
Accordingly, the Court rules as follows:
(1) The R&R (Docket No. 13) is hereby ACCEPTED and APPROVED;
(2) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint for Lack of Subject Matter
Jurisdiction or, Alternatively, for Failure to State a Claim is hereby GRANTED;
(3) This case is hereby DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE;
The Clerk of the Court shall enter Final Judgment in a separate document in accordance
with Rule 58 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
2
It is SO ORDERED.
_________________________________________
KEVIN H. SHARP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?