v. James et al

Filing 52

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Robert E. Payne on 03/10/2016. Copy mailed to Plaintiff on 3/11/2016.(tjoh, )

IN THE UNITED

MAR I 0 2016

STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA

CLERK as. DISTRICT COURT

Richmond Division

SAMUEL M.

richmqimd va

JAMES,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No.

V.

3:14cv827

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

This

matter

PLAINTIFF'S

Supplement
Court

the

PLAINTIFF'S

before

AMENDED

to

set

Court

forth

COMPLAINT

the

the

MOTION

No.

(Docket

Motion for

below,

on

(Docket

Complaint

to be a

AMENDED

the

COMPLAINT

Amended

construes

reasons

is

49)

No.

TO

and

Leave to Add Count

(Docket

No.

MOTION

49)

is

on

the

which

48-2)

defendant's

DISMISS

the

IV.

For

TO

DISMISS

granted,

the

plaintiff's Motion for Leave to Add Count IV (Docket No. 48-2)
will be denied, and this action is dismissed.

BACKGROUND

Samuel

M.

James

(''James"),

proceeding

pro

se,

initiated

this action in December of 2014 seeking to recover $5,000,000.00

in

damages.^

The

claims

asserted

by

James

arise

out

of

interactions with the Department of Veterans Affairs and involve
the

health

care

Medical

Center

OPINION

and

that

42),

he

has

C'VAMC")

ORDER

in

dated

received

Richmond,

October

29,

from

the

Veterans

Virginia.
2015

By

(Docket

Affairs

MEMORANDUM

Nos.

41

and

the Court granted the defendant's motion and dismissed this

action

for

lack

specifically,
because

of

subject

the Court

Count

I

matter

dismissed Count

asserted

a

claim

jurisdiction.

I

of

James's

challenging

his

More

Complaint
veterans'

benefit disability rating and exclusive jurisdiction over such a
claim

is

appealed,
Claims.

claims,

vested

the

in

the

United

Counts

II

and

Board

States
III,

of

Court

Veterans

of

Appeals

Appeals

for

and,

if

Veterans

which asserted medical malpractice

were dismissed because James had failed to comply with

the Virginia Medical Malpractice Act by obtaining a certificate
of merit as required by Va. Code § 8.01-20.1.
Counts

II

and

III

was

without

prejudice

to

Amended Complaint to correct that deficiency,

The dismissal of
the

filing

of

an

if that could be

done.

Thereafter,

48) .

James

filed

Attached thereto was

an

Amended

Complaint

(Docket

No.

the Supplement to Amended Complaint

^ Previously, the Court dismissed a substantially similar action
filed by James
No.

18

in that

(Civil Action. No.
case.

3:13cv861).

See ORDER, Docket

(Docket No.

48-2) .

In the Amended Complaint,

James resubmitted

Count I

virtually without change and dropped Counts II and III.

In

proffered

the

The

defendant

Supplement,

seeks

James

dismissal

of

proposed

Counts

I

to

for

add
lack

Count
of

IV.

subject

matter jurisdiction and to deny James leave to add Count IV.^
DISCUSSION

A.

Count

As

of

I

noted above.

subject

Docket

matter

Nos.

41

Count

I

was

jurisdiction

and

42,

previously dismissed

(MEMORANDUM

respectively) .

Count

Complaint presents the identical claim,
forth

in

the

MEMORANDUM

previously herein,
Civ.

P.

12(b)(1)

OPINION

OPINION

and,

I

lack

of

(Docket

subject

and

of

lack

ORDER,

the Amended

for the reasons set
No.

the motion to dismiss Count
for

for

I

41)

entered

R.

jurisdiction

matter

under Fed.

is

granted.

^ When the United States filed its Motion to Dismiss this action,
James was noticed as required by Roseboro v. Garrison, 528 F.2d
309 (4th Cir. 1975) and Local Rule 7(K) of this Court.
The date
upon which James's response was due was 21 days from the date on
which the motion was filed, or February 10, 2016.
James filed
no response and the motion could be granted for that reason
alone.
However, the Court considers it appropriate to address
the

substance

jurisdiction

of

and

the

an

motion

because

it

involves

unusual

proffer

of

a

entity not named as a defendant.

new

subject

count

matter

against

an

B.

Count

IV

James

proposes

to

add

Order permitting amendment

Counts

II

and

complaint.
III,

if

prerequisites for doing so.
Counts

II

and

The
named

Act,

new

Anderson

a

claim

improperly
states

no

42)

that

the

did not permit James

It merely allowed him to
James

Instead,

count,

Financial

and

15 U.S.C.

of

notwithstanding

could

satisfy

the

James elected to abandon

III.

proposed

Financial")

IV,

(Docket No.

to add any counts to his
amend

Count

is

Count

Services,

brought

under

§ 1601 et seq.

against
before

the

this

the

Count

United

the

is

against

LLC

a

defendant

Loanmax

Federal

(''Anderson

Truth

In

Lending

IV asserts nothing by way

States,

Court.

claim against

IV,

and

thus

Accordingly,

only defendant

Count

herein

is

Count

because

IV

IV

(the

United

States), Count IV is dismissed for failure to state a claim upon
which relief can be granted against the United States.
Civ.

IV

P.

to

12(b)(6).

sue

action,

he

whatever

Motion

entity

is

claims

unrelated

nothing

an

to

Insofar as James purports

denied

James

this

to do with
for

Leave

that

was

leave

may

to

have

action,

the

not

the

against
subject

allegations

to Add Count

that

IV is

a

matter

denied as

party

defendant

Anderson

in Count

R.

in proffered Count

originally
add

Fed.

IV.
a

to

this

because

Financial

are

of

which

has

Further,

the

violation of

the

limited right of amendment accorded under the Court's previous
ORDER

(Docket No.

42).

CONCLUSION

For
DISMISS

the
FOR

foregoing
LACK

OF

reasons,

the

JURISDICTION

DEFENDANT'S

(Docket

No.

MOTION

TO

will

be

49)

granted, James will be denied leave to add Count IV as proffered
in the Supplement to Amended Complaint

(Docket No.

48-2),

and

this action will be dismissed.^
The

Clerk

is

directed

to

send

a

copy

of

this

Memorandum

Opinion to the plaintiff.
It

is

so ORDERED.

/s/

Robert E. Payne
Senior United States District Judge

Richmond, Virginia
Date:

March

,

2016

^ James is admonished that, he risks the imposition of sanctions,
by way of fine, imprisonment or fees and costs if he persists in
refiling or otherwise pursuing any aspect of Count I in this
Court.

Further,

James

is

admonished

that

the

filing

of

other

frivolous complaints such as he has pursued in this case in
Counts II and III and in proffered Count IV also can lead to the
imposition of sanctions.