#Motion to dismiss maryland verification

The court finds that the plaintiff has not 'provided the court with the information necessary to pursue a claim under the ' where the 'plaintiff has failed to show' he filed an administrative appeal and that 'any information was improperly denied.'īrown v. Holding: Granting defendant's motion to dismiss. The court concludes that 'the action is moot and lacks jurisdiction to adjudicate the matter' when the defendant 'released Plaintiff's immigration file to his legal counsel…and subsequently released fourteen of the twenty-four pages that were initially withheld.' With these actions 'the controversy ceases to exist because the primary relief sought has already been provided' by the defendant.īransgaard v. Holding: Granting defendant's motion to dismiss and denying plaintiff's request for attorney fees. §1915(e)(2)(b) without prejudice because it determines the action is frivolous. The court holds that plaintiff's complaint rests entirely on 'frivolous factual allegations.' The court determines that plaintiff relies on baseless allegations that the CIA is working to prevent disclosure of their actions against the nation on Septemand other 'similarly incredible' and 'irrational factual allegations.' Accordingly, the court dismisses the complaint filed in forma pauperis under 28 U.S.C. Holding: Dismissing plaintiff's complaint without prejudice Granting defendant's motion in part and denying defendant's motion for summary judgment as moot.

The court comments that 'laintiff fails to even state the elements of her cause of action.' Noting that there is 'no indication as to how conclusory statements connect to theory of negligence.' The court also dismisses the claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Given that the United States has not waived immunity in this case, Plaintiff's negligence claims arising from the alleged breach of undisclosed duties imposed by ERISA and FOIA must be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.' 'Plaintiff's claims are barred by sovereign and judicial immunity.' However, 'he FTCA contains a limited waiver of sovereign immunity, such that the United States shall be liable for the negligent or wrongful acts of its employees acting within the scope of their employment 'under circumstances where the United States, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred.'' Under the FTCA, 'laintiff would need to allege that a private person would be liable under Virginia law based on the circumstances presented in her complaint.' The court notes that 'laintiff does not specify the duties that were allegedly breached during the course of her dealings with Federal employees and agencies.' In addition, no Virginia law would hold Labor employees liable 'in regards to FOIA complaints and enforcement. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the court dismisses plaintiff's claims that the Department of Labor was negligent in its processing of her FOIA requests. Holding: Granting defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. The court notes that 'an agency has not 'improperly' withheld records, and this court has no jurisdiction, where a requester has not complied with agency regulations.' Accordingly, since plaintiff still has not complied with the Department of Education's regulations, his claim is dismissed without prejudice In addition, processing of plaintiff's request was initially delayed because he failed to submit it to the correct address.

#Motion to dismiss maryland verification

Plaintiff has not submitted the verification of identity that is required by Department of Education regulations. The court dismisses plaintiff's claim for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Holding: Granting defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction without prejudice.