Robbins v. United States Department of Defense et al (MAG+), No. 2:2011cv00567 - Document 22 (M.D. Ala. 2012)
Court Description: ORDER that: 1. Plaintiff's objection 21 is OVERRULED; 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge 20 is ADOPTED; 3. Defendants' Motion to Dismiss 13 is GRANTED; and 4. Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED without prejudice.A separate final judgment will be entered. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/24/2012. (jg, )
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Robbins v. United States Department of Defense et al (MAG+) Doc. 22 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA NORTHERN DIVISION ALLEN WALTER ROBBINS, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) ) UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT ) OF DEFENSE and UNITED STATES ) DEPARTMENT OF THE NAVY, ) ) Defendants. ) CASE NO. 2:11-CV-567-WKW ORDER On June 28, 2012, the Magistrate Judge filed a Report and Recommendation (Doc. # 20) regarding Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13). Plaintiff filed a timely objection. (Doc. # 21.) The court reviews de novo the portion of the Recommendation to which the objection applies. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons that follow, the objection is due to be overruled and the Recommendation adopted. Plaintiff’s objection reiterates that the court should grant him the relief he seeks and asserts that all the allegations in his complaint are true. In the Report and Recommendation, the Magistrate Judge properly accepted the complaint’s allegations as true and construed Plaintiff’s complaint liberally to determine the claims Plaintiff attempted to plead. See Pielage v. McConnell, 516 F.3d 1282, 1284 (11th Cir. 2008) Dockets.Justia.com (When evaluating a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must take “the factual allegations in the complaint as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the plaintiff.”); Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (quoting Estelle v. Gamble, 429 U.S. 97, 106 (1976)) (“A document filed pro se is ‘to be liberally construed,’ and ‘a pro se complaint, however inartfully pleaded, must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.’”). Even accepting the allegations as true and construing the complaint liberally, the Magistrate Judge found no claim over which the court had jurisdiction or could afford relief. Plaintiff’s objection does not remedy his complaint’s deficiencies. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that: 1. Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 21) is OVERRULED; 2. the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 20) is ADOPTED; 3. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 13) is GRANTED; and 4. Plaintiff’s claims are DISMISSED without prejudice. A separate final judgment will be entered. DONE this 24th day of July, 2012. /s/ W. Keith Watkins CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 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.
