WYATT v UNITED STATES OF AMERICA et al

1
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
MACON DIVISION
JOMO K. WYATT, 	:
:
Plaintiff, 	:
: 	No. 5:24-CV-403 (CAR)
v. 	:
:
DUBLIN VAMC and DEPARTMENT 	:
OF VETERANS AFFAIRS, 	:
:
Defendants. 	:
____________________________________:
ORDER ON UNITED STATES OF AMERICA’S MOTION TO DISMISS
DEFENDANTS DUBLIN VAMC and DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS
Currently before the Court is the United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint. For the following reasons, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23]
is 	GRANTED. 	Plaintiff’s 	Complaint 	against 	Defendants 	Dublin 	VAMC 	and 	the
Department of Veteran’s Affairs is DISMISSED. Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file an
Amended Complaint naming the United States of America as the proper Defendant in
this case within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order. Failure to file an Amended
Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of this Order will result in the
dismissal of this action without prejudice.
Case 5:24-cv-00403-CAR Document 36 Filed 01/09/26 Page 1 of 6

2
Plaintiff has filed several documents titled “Statement of Claim” and “Amended
Statement of Claim”1 in which he appears to attempt to amend his Complaint. Plaintiff
must include all allegations in the Amended Complaint. Upon the filing of the Amended
Complaint, Plaintiff’s claims will proceed against the proper Defendant in this action, the
United States of America.
Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Extension of Time to Perfect Service [Doc. 26] is
MOOT, and his Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with the Court’s Scheduling
Deadlines and to Permit Entry of an Independent Medical Exam into the Record [Doc.
27] is DENIED as unnecessary, as no Scheduling and Discovery Order has been yet
entered in this case.
BACKGROUND
Plaintiff Jomo K. Wyatt, a veteran of the United States Army, filed his pro se
Complaint against Dublin VAMC and the Department of Veterans Affairs raising
medical negligence claims.2 Plaintiff alleges the Dublin VAMC failed to provide
necessary follow-up care after two knee surgeries in 2021 and failed to provide testing
which would have shown his prosthesis was loose, causing Plaintiff to suffer severe pain.3
He seeks $200,000.00 in money damages.
1 Docs. 21, 28-1, and 33.
2 Compl. [Doc. 1].
3 Id. at pp. 5 and 7.
Case 5:24-cv-00403-CAR Document 36 Filed 01/09/26 Page 2 of 6

3
Plaintiff 	appears 	to 	have 	filed 	an 	administrative 	tort 	claim 	with 	the 	U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs. He attached a letter dated May 10, 2024, from the U.S.
Department of Veterans Affairs, Office of General Counsel, informing him of the denial
of his claims and his right to sue.4 He filed his Complaint on November 8, 2024.
Plaintiff has also filed two “Statement of Claim” documents5 and an “Amended
and Expanded Statement of Claim”6 appearing to seek amendments to his Complaint,
but Plaintiff has filed to no motion to amend his Complaint.
LEGAL STANDARD
The United States seeks dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) and 12(b)(1). To
avoid dismissal pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), “a complaint must
contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible
on its face.’”7 A claim is plausible where the plaintiff alleges factual content that “allows
the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct
alleged.” 8 The plausibility standard requires that a plaintiff allege sufficient facts “to raise
a reasonable expectation that discovery will reveal evidence” that supports a plaintiff’s
4 Doc. 1-1.
5 Docs. 21 and 28-1.
6 Doc. 33.
7 Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)).
8 Id.
Case 5:24-cv-00403-CAR Document 36 Filed 01/09/26 Page 3 of 6

4
claims.9 “Pro se pleadings are held to a less stringent standard than pleadings drafted by
attorneys and will, therefore, be liberally construed.”10
Motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12(b)(1) may attack jurisdiction facially or factually. 11 Here, the United States attacks
jurisdiction facially. “A ‘facial attack’ on the complaint ‘requires the court merely to look
and see if [the] plaintiff has sufficiently alleged a basis of subject matter jurisdiction, and
the allegations in his complaint are taken as true for the purposes of the motion.”12
ANALYSIS
Plaintiff’s claims are based on the alleged medical malpractice of doctors at the
VA, so they must be brought against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act
(FTCA). “Veterans injured by the negligence of the VA’s medical professionals and their
supporting personnel can bring suit against the United States in federal district court for
medical negligence under the FTCA, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).”13 The FTCA provides, in
relevant part, that district courts “shall have exclusive jurisdiction of civil actions on
claims against the United States for money damages … for … personal injury or death
caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee of the Government”
9 Bell Atl. Corp., 550 U.S. at 556.
10 Trawinski v. United Technologies, 313 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2002) (per curiam).
11 Morrison v. Amway Corp., 323 F.3d 920, 924 n. 5 (11th Cir. 2003).
12 McElmurray v. Consolidated Gov’t of Augusta-Richmond Cnty., 501 F.3d 1244, 1251 (11th Cir. 2007) (internal
quotation marks and citation omitted).
13 Smith v. United States, 7 F.4th 963, 973 (11h Cir. 2021) (citations omitted).
Case 5:24-cv-00403-CAR Document 36 Filed 01/09/26 Page 4 of 6

5
under certain circumstances.14 “Further, as to tort claims related to negligence by VA
personnel specifically, § 7316(a)(1) of Title 38 provides that the FTCA will provide the
remedy for ‘damages or personal injury, including death, allegedly arising from
malpractice or negligence of a health care employee of the [VA] in furnishing health care
treatment,’ a remedy that is ‘exclusive of any other civil action or proceeding by reason
of the same subject matter.’” 15 It is beyond dispute that “the United States [is] the only
proper defendant pursuant to the FTCA.”16
Here, Plaintiff has improperly alleged his negligence claims against the Dublin
VAMC and the Department of Veterans Affairs. Because Plaintiff has invoked the FTCA,
and because the FTCA authorizes suit only against the United States, the Court lacks
jurisdiction over Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which relief
may be granted.
CONCLUSION
The United States of America’s Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 23] is GRANTED.
Plaintiff’s Complaint against Defendants Dublin VAMC and the Department of Veteran’s
Affairs is DISMISSED. Plaintiff is hereby DIRECTED to file an Amended Complaint
naming the United States of America as the proper Defendant in this case within fourteen
14 28 U.S.C. § 1346(b)(1).
15 Smith at 973 (quoting 38 U.S.C. § 7316(a)(1)).
16 Daniel v. United States Marshal Serv., 188 F. App’x 954, 956 (11th Cir. 2006).
Case 5:24-cv-00403-CAR Document 36 Filed 01/09/26 Page 5 of 6

6
(14) days of the date of this Order. Plaintiff must include all allegations in the Amended
Complaint. Upon the filing of the Amended Complaint, Plaintiff’s claims will proceed
against the proper Defendant in this action, the United States of America.
Failure to file an Amended Complaint within fourteen (14) days of the date of
this Order will result in the dismissal of this action without prejudice.
Plaintiff’s pending Motion for Extension of Time to Perfect Service [Doc. 26] is
MOOT, and his Motion for Extension of Time to Comply with the Court’s Scheduling
Deadlines and to Permit Entry of an Independent Medical Exam into the Record [Doc.
27] is DENIED as unnecessary, as no Scheduling and Discovery Order has been yet
entered in this case.
SO ORDERED, this 9th day of January, 2026.
S/ C. Ashley Royal_________________
C. ASHLEY ROYAL, SENIOR JUDGE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Case 5:24-cv-00403-CAR Document 36 Filed 01/09/26 Page 6 of 6