Seweryniak v. Sessions

Filing 12

MEMORANDUM ORDER. The Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 4), be granted; and, Seweryniak's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), be dismissed with prejudice.(R&R 12, ECF No. 10.). The Court has conducted a de novo review of the R&R and Seweryniak's objectio ns. Finding no error in the R&R, the Court: ADOPTS the Report and Recommendation IN FULL (ECF No. 10); GRANTS Sessions's Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 4); and, DISMISSES WITH PREJUDICE Seweryniak's Complaint, (ECF No. 1). Signed by District Judge M. Hannah Lauck on 03/08/2018. Copy mailed to pro se plaintiff. (tjoh, )

Download PDF
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA Richmond Division RICHARD H. SEWERYNIAK, Plaintiff, Civil Action No. 3:17cv237 JEFFERSON B. SESSIONS, ATTORNEY GENERAL, DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE (FBI), Defendant. MEMORANDUM ORDER Plaintiff Richard H. Seweryniak brings this action against United States Attorney General Jefferson B. Sessions, alleging violations of the Whistleblower Protection Act, 5 U.S.C. § 2303, the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (the "CSRA"), the Administrative Procedure Act of 1946, and 29 C.F.R. § 1614.405. Sessions moved to dismiss the Complaint (the "Motion to Dismiss"). (ECF No. 4.) The Court referred the Motion to Dismiss to the Honorable Roderick C. Young, United States Magistrate Judge, pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). (ECF No. 9.) Judge Young filed a Report and Recommendation ("R&R") on January 31, 2018. (ECF No. 10.) Judge Young recommended that: 1) The Motion to Dismiss, (ECF No. 4), be granted; and, 2) Seweryniak's Complaint, (ECF No. 1), be dismissed with prejudice. (R&R 12, ECF No. 10.) By copy of the R&R, each party was advised of the right to file written objections to the findings and recommendations made by Judge Young within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the R&R. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); (R&R 13). On February 20, 2018, Seweryniak

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?