VAUGHN v. VILSACK, 4:13CV2427 RL W. (2015)
Court: District Court, E.D. Missouri
Number: infdco20150108b46
Filed: Jan. 07, 2015
Latest Update: Jan. 07, 2015
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate a Void Final Judgment (ECF No. 39). Therein, Plaintiff argues that the Court's October 15, 2014 final judgment is void due to "jurisdictional defects ... on the face of the record." (ECF No. 39 at 1). Plaintiff again erroneously claims that this is a court of equity and that the undersigned is a magistrate judge. As previously discussed by this Court ( see ECF Nos. 21, 28), the
Summary: MEMORANDUM AND ORDER RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge. This matter is before the Court Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate a Void Final Judgment (ECF No. 39). Therein, Plaintiff argues that the Court's October 15, 2014 final judgment is void due to "jurisdictional defects ... on the face of the record." (ECF No. 39 at 1). Plaintiff again erroneously claims that this is a court of equity and that the undersigned is a magistrate judge. As previously discussed by this Court ( see ECF Nos. 21, 28), the u..
More
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
RONNIE L. WHITE, District Judge.
This matter is before the Court Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate a Void Final Judgment (ECF No. 39). Therein, Plaintiff argues that the Court's October 15, 2014 final judgment is void due to "jurisdictional defects ... on the face of the record." (ECF No. 39 at 1). Plaintiff again erroneously claims that this is a court of equity and that the undersigned is a magistrate judge.
As previously discussed by this Court (see ECF Nos. 21, 28), the undersigned is a district judge pursuant to Article III of the U.S. Constitution, who has power to hear all cases arising under the Constitution, the laws of the United States, and to controversies to which the United states is a party. Further, Plaintiffs consent was not required for this Court to hear this case because the undersigned is not a magistrate judge. Therefore, the Court had full and complete jurisdiction over Plaintiffs claims and the Court entered a valid final judgment.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiffs Motion to Vacate a Void Final Judgment (ECF No. 39) is DENIED.
Source: Leagle
