IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
June 3, 2010
EUGENE E. CHATMAN, PLAINTIFF,
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, DEFENDANT.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Arthur J. Schwab United States District Judge
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER OF COURT GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (DOC. NO. 8)
This is plaintiff Eugene E. Chatman's third attempt to sue the United States of America under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, based on his claim that he was improperly denied permission to the Veterans Administration ("VA") facility at Highland Drive in Pittsburgh because of his disorderly conduct, and was physically assaulted, harassed, verbally threatened and unjustifiably restrained by employees at the VA Highland Drive facility. As the government correctly states, the "gravamen of [plaintiff's] Complaint is the same as that filed by Plaintiff on January 23, 2003 in Civil Action No. 02-2165 and on June 2, 2003 in Civil Action No. 03-0798, both previously dismissed by this Court." Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 9), at 1.
On March 1, 2004, this Court dismissed Plaintiff's claims against the VA in Civil Action No. 03-0798 on the grounds of issue preclusion and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Memorandum Opinion dated March 1, 2004 (Doc. No. 17), which was upheld on appeal. Chatman v. United States, No. 04-1602, 115 Fed. Appx. 600 (3d Cir. 2004). The government again asserts issue preclusion and lack of subject matter jurisdiction in this action.
Plaintiff's response to the motion to dismiss merely recites the facts and circumstances regarding incidents at the VA facility, as plaintiff remembers them, and makes no attempt whatsoever to rebut the government's arguments for dismissal. The Court will grant the government's motion to dismiss for the reasons stated in the Memorandum Opinion dated March 1, 2004 (Doc. No. 17) in Civil Action No. 03-0798. Accordingly, Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 8) is HEREBY GRANTED, and this case is dismissed with prejudice.
The Clerk of Court shall mark this case closed.
© 1992-2010 VersusLaw Inc.