JAMES KING, Senior District Judge
THIS CAUSE comes before the Court upon Defendants Motion to Dismiss, filed October 30, 2003. Plaintiff has not filed a response, and the time to do so has passed.
On October 22, 2003, Plaintiffs Complaint to Re-Foreclose Mortgage ("Complaint") was removed to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida. In his Complaint, Plaintiff seeks to re-foreclose a mortgage on a piece of property for which a notice of federal tax lien has been filed by the Internal Revenue Service. Specifically, Plaintiff's Complaint seeks a declaration that Defendant be forced to exercise its right of redemption or have its interest in the property forever foreclosed. In its current Motion, Defendant argues that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear Plaintiffs Complaint because Defendant is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
A motion to dismiss will be granted only where it is clear that no set of facts consistent with the allegations could provide a basis for relief "It is well established that a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim pursuant to Fed R Civ Pro 12(b)(6) `unless it appears beyond doubt that plaintiff can prove no set of facts that would entitle him to relief.'" Bradberry v. Pinellas County, 789 F.2d 1513, 1515 (11th Cir. 1986) (quotingConley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957)) For purposes of a motion to dismiss, a court must construe the complaint in the light most favorable to the plaintiff and accept as true all facts alleged by the plaintiff. Hishon v. King Spalding, 467 U.S. 69, 73 (1984). The issue is not whether the plaintiff will ultimately prevail, but "whether the claimant is entitled to offer evidence to support the claims." Little v. City of North Miami. 805 F.2d 962, 965 (11th Cir. 1986) (citation omitted). Regardless of the alleged facts, however, a court may dismiss a complaint on a dispositive issue of law.Marshall County Bd. of Educ. v. Marshall County Gas Dist., 992 F.2d 1171, 1174 (11th Cir. 1993).
The United States is immune from suit under the doctrine of sovereign immunity except to the extent that it has explicitly waived its immunity.United States v. Mitchell 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980). Moreover, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that sovereign immunity has been waived by identifying the specific statutory provision evidencing such waiver. Thomson v. United States, 2001 WL 1022518, *2 (S.D. Fla. 2001), aff'd. — F.3d — (11th Cir. 2003). Finally, waiver of sovereign immunity must be express and will not be implied by the court. Id.
In the above-styled action. Plaintiff has not identified any provision evidencing that the United States has waived its immunity from suit Therefore, the Court finds that Defendant is entitled to sovereign immunity. Accordingly, after a careful review of the record, and the Court being otherwise fully advised, it is
ORDERED and ADJUDGED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss be, and the same is hereby, GRANTED Plaintiffs Complaint is DISMISSED in its entirety
DONE and ORDERED.