Jackson v. Small Business Administration

N.D. Texas

Jackson v. Small Business Administration

DecidedJanuary 24, 2023

Docket3:22-cv-00986

StatusUnknown

This text of Jackson v. Small Business Administration (Jackson v. Small Business Administration) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Jackson v. Small Business Administration, (N.D. Tex. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

United States District Court NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LINDRA I. JACKSON § § v. § § SMALL BUSINESS § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-986-S8-BH ADMINISTRATION, ISABELLA § CASILLAS GUZMAN, and UNITED § STATES OF AMERICA § ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. Objections were filed, and the Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which objection was made, The plaintiff correctly points out that although the FCR states that she only names the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) and administrator as defendants, her Third Amended Complaint does name the United States as a defendant. ECF No. 62. To the extent that her general request for monetary damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) may be construed as asserting an FTCA claim against the SBA and administrator, the FCR correctly finds the claim against them must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Galvin v. OSHA, 860 F.2d 181, 183 (Sth Cir. 1988). Because she has still not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she exhausted her administrative remedies by filing an administrative claim with the SBA, the FCR also correctly finds that Court lacks jurisdiction over any FTCA claim against the United States. See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Accordingly, the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed August 8, 2022 [ECF No.

70], is GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed May 9, 2022 [ECF No. 15], and Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Default Judgment by Sanction for Failure to Serve Answers to Interrogatories, filed August 30, 2022 [ECF No. 88], are DENIED. By separate judgment, the plaintiff's claims against the defendants will be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. SIGNED January? 4/2023,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

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

United States District Court NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION LINDRA I. JACKSON § § v. § § SMALL BUSINESS § CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:22-CV-986-S8-BH ADMINISTRATION, ISABELLA § CASILLAS GUZMAN, and UNITED § STATES OF AMERICA § ORDER The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions and a recommendation (“FCR”) in this case. Objections were filed, and the Court has made a de novo review of those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions and recommendation to which objection was made, The plaintiff correctly points out that although the FCR states that she only names the Small Business Administration (“SBA”) and administrator as defendants, her Third Amended Complaint does name the United States as a defendant. ECF No. 62. To the extent that her general request for monetary damages under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) may be construed as asserting an FTCA claim against the SBA and administrator, the FCR correctly finds the claim against them must be dismissed for want of jurisdiction. See Galvin v. OSHA, 860 F.2d 181, 183 (Sth Cir. 1988). Because she has still not shown by a preponderance of the evidence that she exhausted her administrative remedies by filing an administrative claim with the SBA, the FCR also correctly finds that Court lacks jurisdiction over any FTCA claim against the United States. See McAfee v. 5th Circuit Judges, 884 F.2d 221, 222-23 (Sth Cir. 1989) (per curiam). Accordingly, the Court accepts the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss, filed August 8, 2022 [ECF No.

70], is GRANTED in part. Plaintiffs Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed May 9, 2022 [ECF No. 15], and Plaintiff's Emergency Motion for Default Judgment by Sanction for Failure to Serve Answers to Interrogatories, filed August 30, 2022 [ECF No. 88], are DENIED. By separate judgment, the plaintiff's claims against the defendants will be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. SO ORDERED. SIGNED January? 4/2023,

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Jackson v. Small Business Administration, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/jackson-v-small-business-administration-txnd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack