Hinson-Gribble v. United States Office of Personnel Management, et al
Quancidine Hinson-Gribble |
United States Office of Personnel Management, Katherine Archeleta, Donna Seymour, Army Community Services, Survivors Outreach Services, Charlotte Watson, Amy Melendez, Joanie L. Hammons, David E. McDermott, Jim Szatkowski, Cynthia Virrueta, John W. Ellerbe, Jim Klemowski, Ethel Knock, Jeffrey M. Sanborn and Kay Hagan |
5:2016cv00070 |
February 11, 2016 |
US District Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina |
Western Division Office |
CUMBERLAND |
Louise Wood Flanagan |
Other Fraud |
05 U.S.C. ยง 552 |
Plaintiff |
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
Document Text |
---|
Filing 97 JUDGMENT - Signed by Peter A. Moore, Jr., Clerk of Court on 10/5/2018. (Collins, S.) |
Filing 92 ORDER - The court GRANTS defendants' motion to dismiss 86 . For good cause shown, plaintiff's deadline to effect service is EXTENDED to September 21, 2018, and deadline for showing proof of service on the record sha ll be and is September 30, 2018. Plaintiff is NOTICED that failure to effect service properly within the appropriate time will result in dismissal of this action without prejudice for failure to serve, and the closing of this case. Where the court grants defendants' request, the court DENIES AS MOOT plaintiffs motions for entry of default 79 82 and 83 . Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 8/22/2018. (Collins, S.) |
Filing 54 ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 52 Memorandum and Recommendations. The court ADOPTS the M&R in full. The court DISMISSES plaintiffs FISMA and 40 U.S.C. § 11331 claims. The court also DISMISSES plaintiffs Pr ivacy Act claims against the individual defendants, the2 Specifically, as set forth in the M&R, the Privacy Act does not provide a vehicle for plaintiffs to challenge substantive decisions made by an agency. See e.g., Melvin v. U.S. Dept of Veterans Affairs, 70 F. Supp. 3d 350, 357 (D.D.C. Sept., 30, 2014). Accordingly, to the extent plaintiff asserts claims under the Privacy Act to obtain relief from substantive decisions made with respect to various benefits she argues are due to her, such cla ims are dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Installation Command, the DFAS, and the agency defendants, to the extent such claims against the agency defendants seek to challenge substantive decisions made by those agencies. The court ALLOWS plaintiffs remaining Privacy Act claims against defendants OPM, the Outreach Center, the DMDC, the APO, and the ID Card Facility to proceed. Signed by District Judge Louise Wood Flanagan on 9/7/2017. (Collins, S.) |
Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.
- Search for Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.