Newcombe v. United States of America, 17-cv-454(JNE/FLN). (2018)
Court: District Court, D. Minnesota
Number: infdco20180207a88
Visitors: 6
Filed: Feb. 06, 2018
Latest Update: Feb. 06, 2018
Summary: ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN , District Judge . Eugene Newcombe brought this action against the United States for negligent supervision and training. According to Newcombe, the action "arises from an erroneously-generated letter from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs . . . which purported to inform Mr. Newcombe that he was not entitled to certain disability benefits." The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In a Re
Summary: ORDER JOAN N. ERICKSEN , District Judge . Eugene Newcombe brought this action against the United States for negligent supervision and training. According to Newcombe, the action "arises from an erroneously-generated letter from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs . . . which purported to inform Mr. Newcombe that he was not entitled to certain disability benefits." The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In a Rep..
More
ORDER
JOAN N. ERICKSEN, District Judge.
Eugene Newcombe brought this action against the United States for negligent supervision and training. According to Newcombe, the action "arises from an erroneously-generated letter from the United States Department of Veterans Affairs . . . which purported to inform Mr. Newcombe that he was not entitled to certain disability benefits." The United States moved to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1). In a Report and Recommendation dated December 15, 2017, the Honorable Franklin L. Noel, United States Magistrate Judge, recommended that the United States' motion be granted. Newcombe objected. The United States did not respond. Based on a de novo review of the record, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (2012), the Court overrules the objection and accepts the recommended disposition [Docket No. 33]. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED THAT:
1. The United States' motion to dismiss [Docket No. 26] is GRANTED.
2. This action is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE.
LET JUDGMENT BE ENTERED ACCORDINGLY.
Source: Leagle
