Sears et al v. Mathews et al (MAG+)

Filing 6

ORDER directing that: 1) Plfs' 5 Objection is OVERRULED; 2) the 4 Report and Recommendation is ADOPTED; and 3) this case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 USC 1915(e)(2), and for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the FRCP. Signed by Honorable William Keith Watkins on 3/26/2009. (wcl, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR T H E MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA N O R T H E R N DIVISION C A L V IN S. SEARS, et al., P l a i n t if f s , v. E M M A N U E L MATHEWS, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

C A S E NO. 2:09-CV-164-WKW[WO]

ORDER O n March 6, 2009, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case. (Doc. # 4.) Plaintiffs filed an objection on March 19, 2009. (Doc. # 5.) Having conducted an in d e p e n d en t and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), the court finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction because th e re is no diversity of citizenship, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and no federal question appears on th e face of the complaint, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that 1. 2. 3. P la in tif f s ' objection (Doc. # 5) is OVERRULED; th e Recommendation (Doc. # 4) is ADOPTED; and th is case is DISMISSED pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), and for lack of

s u b je c t matter jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule 12(h)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1 D O N E this 26th day of March, 2009. /s/ W. Keith Watkins UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1

This Order, by itself, does not preclude Plaintiffs from seeking an appropriate remedy in state

court.