Skip to content.
About GPO   |   Newsroom/Media   |   Congressional Relations   |   Inspector General   |   Careers   |   Contact   |   askGPO   |   Help  
 

  FDsys > More Information
(Search string is required)
 

16-726 - Copeland v. Minton et al


Download Files

Metadata

Document in Context
16-726 - Copeland v. Minton et al
December 29, 2016
PDF | More
Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation re: 13 Defendants' Amended Rule 12(b)(1) Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction, Alternative Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failing to State Claims on Which Relief May be Granted, and Rule 11(c) Motion for Sanctions. If Plaintiff does not file an amended complaint that states a claim for relief within the 14 days for objections to this recommendation, or a deadline otherwise set by the Court, Defendants' motion to dismiss should be GRANTED, and the claims against them should be DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. To the extent that subject-matter jurisdiction exists, Plaintiff's claims against Defendants should be DISMISSED with prejudice for failure to state a claim. Defendants' motion for Rule 11 sanctions should be DENIED. If Plaintiff timely files an amended complaint, Defendants' motion to dismiss should be DENIED as moot, and the action should be allowed to proceed on the amended complaint. Defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions should be DENIED. (Ordered by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez on 12/29/2016) (mcrd)
January 23, 2017
PDF | More
Order Accepting 18 Findings and Recommendations: The court grants Defendant's Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Subject Matter Jurisdiction; denies as moot Plaintiff's Alternative Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss for Failing to State Claims on which Relief May Be Granted; denies Defendant's Rule 11(c) Motion for Sanctions; and dismisses this action without prejudice. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 1/23/2017) (mem)