Opinion
23-2249-JAR-ADM
07-20-2023
BENJAMIN VELAYO, Plaintiff, v. CHERYL FOX, et al., Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
JULIE A. ROBINSON, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Plaintiff filed this matter pro se on May 30, 2023, alleging a tort claim against Defendant Department of Veteran Affairs (“VA”) for the alleged actions of VA employee Cheryl Fox on February 6, 2019. This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Angel D. Mitchell's Report and Recommendation filed on June 5, 2023 (Doc. 5). Judge Mitchell recommended dismissal and noted that there was no indication that Plaintiff ever presented his alleged tort claim in writing to the VA. Because the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2401(b), 2675(a) (“FTCA”) requires notice to the United States prior to filing suit, Judge Mitchell found that the Court did not have subject matter jurisdiction. Plaintiff filed an objection on June 20, 2023.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72(b)(2) governs objections to a magistrate judge's Report and Recommendation and states that “[w]ithin 14 days after being served with a copy of the recommended disposition, a party may serve and file specific written objections to the proposed findings and recommendations.” And pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3), “[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate judge's disposition that has been properly objected to.”
Here, Plaintiff does not specifically identify any issue with Judge Mitchell's Report and Recommendation. Instead, he simply states that he disagrees with it. The Court overrules Plaintiff's objection as he provides no valid explanation. Furthermore, after a de novo determination upon the record pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 72, the Court accepts as its own the recommended decision to dismiss this case.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED BY THE COURT that in accordance with the June 5, 2023 Report and Recommendation (Doc. 5), this case is hereby dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
IT IS SO ORDERED.