Ray v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation et al

Filing 24

ORDER ADOPTING 21 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge insofar as this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; ORDERED, however, that although the FDIC, as receiver for Frontier Bank, has demonstrated its entitlement to the funds at issue, the 16 motion to pay over interpleaded funds is DENIED on the grounds that this court does not hold the funds, as further set out in order. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 6/13/14. (djy, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
WAYNE RAY,
Plaintiff,
v.
FEDERAL DEPOSIT
INSURANCE CORPORATION,
as receiver for FRONTIER
BANK, et al.,
Defendants.

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

CASE NO. 3:13-CV-375-WKW

ORDER
On May 1, 2014, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation in this case
to which no timely objections have been filed. (Doc. # 21.) Upon an independent
review of the file in this case, it is ORDERED that the Recommendation is
ADOPTED insofar as this action is DISMISSED for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction. It is ORDERED, however, that, although the FDIC, as receiver for
Frontier Bank, has demonstrated its entitlement to the funds at issue, the motion to
pay over interpleaded funds (Doc. # 16) is DENIED on the grounds that this court
does not hold the funds. Notably, there is an Order from the Circuit Court of Lee
County, Alabama, directing the Lee County Circuit Clerk to pay over to the Clerk
of the Court for the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama

all remaining funds interpleaded (see Doc. #1-14), but the court has been informed
that the Clerk of this Court never has received those funds.

The court will

postpone entering final judgment until the funds are located and deposited with the
court.
DONE this 13th day of June, 2014.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2