Cale v. USA

Filing 11

ORDER granting dft's 7 Motion to Dismiss by Judge Ricardo S Martinez.(RS) cc plaintiff

1
2
3
4
5
6
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
AT SEATTLE

7
8
9 EDWARD CALE,

CASE NO. 2:17-cv-00095-RSM

10
11

Plaintiff,
v.

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
12
Defendant.
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22

This matter came before the Court on Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss. Dkt. #7. The Court
has reviewed the Motion, all evidence submitted in support of the motion, and Defendant’s reply, as
well as the documents on file, and is otherwise fully informed. Plaintiff has failed to file a Response
or otherwise communicate with the Court in this matter. The failure to file a response “may be
considered by the court as an admission that the motion has merit.” Local Civil Rule 7(b)(2). The
Court finds that Plaintiff’s Complaint fails for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and fails to state a
claim upon which relief can be granted, and that dismissal with prejudice is warranted given
Plaintiff’s lack of response to the instant Motion and for the other reasons stated by Defendant in its
Motion. See Dkt. #7 at 7.

23
24
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
2:17-cv-00095-RSM - 1

1

Therefore, it is hereby ordered that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. #7) is

2 GRANTED and all of plaintiff’s claims against Defendant are dismissed with prejudice.
3
4

DATED this 14th day of April 2017.

5

A

6
7

RICARDO S. MARTINEZ
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
Order Granting Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss
2:17-cv-00095-RSM - 2