Mayo v. Mayo et al (JOINT ASSIGN) (MAG+)

Filing 13

ORDER as follows: 1. Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayos objection (Doc. 11 ) is OVERRULED; 2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 10) is ADOPTED; and 3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. A final judgment will be entered separately. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 7/24/2017. (dmn, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
ANDREA EGGLESTON MAYO,
Plaintiff,
v.
SAMANTHA ALEXIS MAYO,
KATHY AUSLEY, DOMBY
LEVON AUSLEY, LARRY K.
ANDERSON, TERRY KEY,
PETER MCINNISH, BOBBY
GENE TRUITT, STEVE
PARRISH, CASEY BECK,
MAURICE ALFONSO
EGGLESTON, and KALIA
LANE,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 1:17-CV-333-WKW
[WO]

ORDER
Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 10),
to which Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayo has filed objections (Doc. # 11). The
court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
In her objection, Ms. Mayo argues the merits of her case, claiming that she is
entitled to relief. In so doing, she misses the thrust of the Recommendation: that her
case is due to be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Rather, because

the state-court action had already been dismissed prior to the attempted removal, the
Magistrate Judge properly recommended dismissal without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1.

Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayo’s objection (Doc. # 11) is

OVERRULED;
2.

The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 10) is

ADOPTED; and
3.

This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter

jurisdiction.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 24th day of July, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2