Soto v. Nielsen

D. Montana

Soto v. Nielsen

DecidedSeptember 27, 2019

Docket9:19-cv-00013

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Soto v. Nielsen, (D. Mont. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

riLeoy SEP 27 2019 Clerk, U S District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT wn iissoula FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

PAMELA SOTO, CV 19-13—M—DLC-JCL Plaintiff, VS. ORDER KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and Recommendation on July 26th, 2019, concluding that Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss should be granted and that this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc.17.) To date, neither

party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, this Court reviews Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error is “significantly deferential” and exists if the 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) (citations omitted). The Court finds no clear error in Judge Lynch’s finding that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act at 49 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. (““ATSA”) precludes Plaintiff's suit under the federal Rehabilitation Act. See Field v. Napolitano, 663 F.3d 505, 510 (1st Cir. 2011). Additionally, no clear error is discovered in Judge Lynch’s determination that the ATSA’s “notwithstanding” clauses render other general federal statutes, like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), inapplicable to Plaintiff. See Conyers v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 388 F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, because the ATSA supersedes both Plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim and her ADEA claim, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Lynch’s finding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 17) are ADOPTED IN FULL. (2) This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

_2-

DATED this 17 □□□ of September, |

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge United States District Court

_3-

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

riLeoy SEP 27 2019 Clerk, U S District Court IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT wn iissoula FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA MISSOULA DIVISION

PAMELA SOTO, CV 19-13—M—DLC-JCL Plaintiff, VS. ORDER KEVIN MCALEENAN, Acting Secretary, Department of Homeland Security, Transportation Security Administration, Defendants. United States Magistrate Judge Jeremiah C. Lynch entered his Findings and Recommendation on July 26th, 2019, concluding that Defendant’s Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss should be granted and that this action should be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc.17.) To date, neither

party has objected. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C). Accordingly, this Court reviews Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendation for clear error. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). Clear error is “significantly deferential” and exists if the 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) (citations omitted). The Court finds no clear error in Judge Lynch’s finding that the Aviation and Transportation Security Act at 49 U.S.C. § 791 et seq. (““ATSA”) precludes Plaintiff's suit under the federal Rehabilitation Act. See Field v. Napolitano, 663 F.3d 505, 510 (1st Cir. 2011). Additionally, no clear error is discovered in Judge Lynch’s determination that the ATSA’s “notwithstanding” clauses render other general federal statutes, like the Age Discrimination in Employment Act, 29 U.S.C. § 621 et seq. (“ADEA”), inapplicable to Plaintiff. See Conyers v. Merit Systems Protection Bd., 388 F.3d 1380, 1382 (Fed. Cir. 2004). Therefore, because the ATSA supersedes both Plaintiff's Rehabilitation Act claim and her ADEA claim, the Court finds no clear error in Judge Lynch’s finding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this matter. Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that: (1) Judge Lynch’s Findings and Recommendation (Doc. 17) are ADOPTED IN FULL. (2) This matter is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

_2-

DATED this 17 □□□ of September, |

Dana L. Christensen, Chief Judge United States District Court

_3-

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Soto v. Nielsen, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/soto-v-nielsen-mtd-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack