You're viewing Docket Item 52 from the case Wonders v. Crutchfield et al (MAG+). View the full docket and case details.

Download this document:




Case 1:12-cv-00514-WKW-SRW Document 52 Filed 06/04/13 Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA

SOUTHERN DIVISION

MARK GERAGHTY WONDERS,

)
)
)
)
) CASE NO. 1:12-CV-514-WKW
)

ANTHONY CRUTCHFIELD, Major
)
General, and JAMES MUSKOPF, Colonel, )
)
)

[WO]

Plaintiff,

v.

Defendants.

ORDER

On May 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 49)

that Mr. Plaintiff Mark Geraghty Wonders’s Second Amended Complaint be

dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Wonders filed an objection

(Doc. # 50) and included in that objection a motion to amend his complaint.

Defendants filed a response in opposition to Mr. Wonders’s filing. (Doc. # 51.)

Having independently reviewed the file in this case and conducted a de novo

review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, see 28

U.S.C. § 636(b), the court finds that the objection lacks merit for the reasons set forth

in the Recommendation and that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. The court adds

that even if a basis for supplemental jurisdiction existed, the court would decline to

exercise such jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Furthermore, the

Case 1:12-cv-00514-WKW-SRW Document 52 Filed 06/04/13 Page 2 of 2

court finds that Mr. Wonders’s motion to amend the second amended complaint is

due to be denied on grounds of futility.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that

(1) Mr. Wonders’ objection (Doc. # 50) is OVERRULED;

(2)

the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 49) is ADOPTED;

(3) Defendants’ motion to dismiss (Doc. # 42) is GRANTED;

(4) Mr. Wonders’s motion to amend the second amended complaint (Doc.

# 50) is DENIED; and

(5)

this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.

DONE this 4th day of June, 2013.

/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2