Dickson v. United States of America No Docs See Doc 135.

E.D. Texas

Dickson v. United States of America No Docs See Doc 135.

DecidedFebruary 27, 2024

Docket1:14-cv-00250

StatusUnknown

This text of Dickson v. United States of America No Docs See Doc 135. (Dickson v. United States of America No Docs See Doc 135.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Dickson v. United States of America No Docs See Doc 135., (E.D. Tex. 2024).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BRYAN KERR DICKSON, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-250 § § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, Bryan Kerr Dickson, an inmate formerly confined at USP Beaumont, proceeding pro se, filed this Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against the United States of America. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings (#149). Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (#150). This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s claims under the FTCA be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and/or for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s only objections appear to be twofold. One, that this court, sitting in the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas, somehow does not have jurisdiction over this case. The record belies this assertion and jurisdiction and venue have been and continue to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. To the extent Plaintiff asserts the magistrate judge did not consider Millbrook v. United States, the record also does not bear out this assertion. 569 U.S. 50, 57 (2013). The magistrate judge discusses Millbrook under the Law Enforcement Proviso section and analyzes the claims as required by Millbrook and Dickson v. United States, 11 F.4th 308, 314 (th Cir. 2021) (#149, pg. 12). ORDER Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the reports of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 27th day of February, 2024.

MARCIA A. CRONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS BRYAN KERR DICKSON, § § Plaintiff, § § versus § CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:14-CV-250 § § UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, § § Defendant. § MEMORANDUM ORDER OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ADOPTING THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION Plaintiff, Bryan Kerr Dickson, an inmate formerly confined at USP Beaumont, proceeding pro se, filed this Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) against the United States of America. The court has received and considered the Report and Recommendation of the magistrate judge filed pursuant to such order, along with the record, and pleadings (#149). Petitioner filed Objections to the Report and Recommendation (#150). This requires a de novo review of the objections in relation to the pleadings and applicable law. See FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b). The magistrate judge recommended Plaintiff’s claims under the FTCA be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and/or for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Plaintiff’s only objections appear to be twofold. One, that this court, sitting in the Beaumont Division of the Eastern District of Texas, somehow does not have jurisdiction over this case. The record belies this assertion and jurisdiction and venue have been and continue to be proper in the Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division. To the extent Plaintiff asserts the magistrate judge did not consider Millbrook v. United States, the record also does not bear out this assertion. 569 U.S. 50, 57 (2013). The magistrate judge discusses Millbrook under the Law Enforcement Proviso section and analyzes the claims as required by Millbrook and Dickson v. United States, 11 F.4th 308, 314 (th Cir. 2021) (#149, pg. 12). ORDER Accordingly, Plaintiff’s objections are OVERRULED. The findings of fact and conclusions of law of the magistrate judge are correct, and the reports of the magistrate judge are ADOPTED. A final judgment will be entered in accordance with the recommendation of the magistrate judge.

SIGNED at Beaumont, Texas, this 27th day of February, 2024.

MARCIA A. CRONE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Dickson v. United States of America No Docs See Doc 135., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/dickson-v-united-states-of-america-no-docs-see-doc-135-txed-2024.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack