Braun v. Department of Justice, No. 2:2014cv00070 - Document 20 (D. Mont. 2015)
Court Description: ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 19 in full; granting 8 Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction. Plaintiff's Complaint 1 is DISMISSED without leave to amend. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 4/3/2015. (TAG, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Braun v. Department of Justice Doc. 20 FILED IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA BUTTE DIVISION APR 03 2015 Clef!<, l!·S District Court Distnct Of Montana Missoula CV 14-70-BU-DWM-JCL DAVID STEVEN BRAUN, Plaintiff, ORDER vs. DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, Defendant. This matter comes before the Court on Defendant Department of Justice's ("the Department") motion to dismiss this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. 8.) Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch entered Findings and Recommendations on February 23, 2015, recommending the Court grant the Department's motion. (Doc. 19.) Plaintiff David Steven Braun did not file objections. The Court reviews the findings and recommendations that are not specifically objected to for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error exists ifthe Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422, 427 (9th Cir. 2000). The Court 1 Dockets.Justia.com finds no clear error with Judge Lynch's determination that the Court should dismiss this action. Braun's claims for money damages under the Freedom of Information Act are barred by sovereign immunity and the Court's resulting lack of jurisdiction. Braun's claims for monetary relief under the Privacy Act are insufficient to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. The Court finds no clear error with Judge Lynch's determination that any attempted amendment of the Complaint would be futile because the Department fully released to Braun all of the documents it possessed. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 19) is ADOPTED IN FULL. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 8) is GRANTED, and Plaintiffs Complaint (Doc. 1) is DISMISSED without leave to amend. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of Court is directed to close this case. Dated this rday of April, 2015. 2
]]>
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.
