Harris v. United States of America Department of Veterans Affairs

Filing 14

MEMORANDUM OPINION. Signed by District Judge Henry E. Hudson on 11/8/2016. Copy mailed to Pro Se Plaintiff. (jsmi, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Richmond Division

SAMUEL E. HARRIS,

Plaintiff,
Civil Action No. 3:16CV158-HEH

V.

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

DEPARTMENT OF

VETERANS AFFAIRS,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION

(Dismissing FTCA Action Without Prejudice)

Samuel E. Harris, a Virginia inmate proceeding pro se and informa pauperis,

broughtthis action pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act ("FTCA"), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346

&2671 et seq} In his "NOTICE OF CLAIM" ("Complaint," ECF No. 1), Harris
indicated that he "hereby gives notice that within six (6) months from the date of this
notice, claimant will file a claim against the Department of Veterans Affairs for the
below injury(s)." {Id. at 1.)

That statute provides, in pertinent part:

[T]he district courts ... shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on claims
against the United States, for money damages ... for injury or loss of property, or
personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of
any employee of the Government while acting within the scope of his office or
employment, under circumstances where the United States, if a private person,
would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the
act or omission occurred.

28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).

By Memorandum Order entered on October 5, 2016, the Court directed Harris to
show cause, within eleven (11) days of the date of entry thereof,

why his Complaint should not be dismissed for any of the following
reasons: (1) for failure to exhaust administrative remedies pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 2675(a); (2) as untimely pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b); and (3)
for failure to state a claim pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1915(e)(2) & 1915A.
(ECF No. 13, at 4.) The Court warned Harris that failure to respond would result in
summary dismissal of the action. {Id.)

More than eleven (11) days have passed, and Harris has not responded to the
Court's October 5, 2016 Memorandum Order. Such conduct demonstrates a willful

failure to prosecute. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(b). Accordingly, this action will be
dismissed without prejudice.

An appropriate Order will accompany this Memorandum Opinion.

/s/
HENRY E.HUDSON

Date:

2oiL

Richmond, Virginia

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE