Robert W. Powers, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States of America and the State of South Dakota,defendants-appellees, 878 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1989)

Annotate this Case
US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit - 878 F.2d 1443 (Fed. Cir. 1989) March 21, 1989

Before FRIEDMAN, BISSELL and ARCHER, Circuit Judges.

ARCHER, Circuit Judge.


ORDER

The United States moves to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Robert W. Powers has not filed a response.

Powers filed a complaint in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia. Upon review of the complaint and the government's clarifying statements, it appears that Powers' suit concerned complaints about an assault and battery verdict against him in South Dakota, complaints about a state civil verdict against him in South Dakota, subsequent seizure of his property to satisfy the judgment, complaints about the alleged failure of government officials to assist him in his "due process" and "equal protection" claims, and $40 million in "exemplary damages."

We, sua sponte, consider whether summary affirmance is appropriate."1  Summary affirmance is appropriate when the position of one of the parties is clearly right as a matter of law so that there can be no substantial question as to the outcome of the case. Groendyke Transport, Inc. v. Davis, 406 F.2d 1158, 1162 (5th Cir. 1969). Here, we have reviewed Powers' complaint, the district court's order, and the papers submitted on motion, and have determined that summary affirmance is proper. Powers' claims against the government are totally without merit and, indeed, are frivolous.2 

Upon consideration thereof,

IT IS ORDERED THAT:

(1) The court, sua sponte, summarily affirms the district court's dismissal of Powers' complaint.

(2) The United States' motion to dismiss is moot.

 1

The government asks us to dismiss on the ground that we lack jurisdiction. However, the circumstances here are similar to those in Galloway Farms, Inc. v. United States, 834 F.2d 998 (Fed. Cir. 1987) where this court determined that the best course was to review the district court's dismissal on the merits

 2

No party has suggested that we transfer this appeal. We would decline to do so in any event in the "interest of justice." See Galloway Farms, 834 F.2d at 1000-01

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.