Curry v. Dart Container Corporation of Georgia

Filing 16

OPINION AND ORDER adopting 14 the Final Report and Recommendation. The Clerk is DIRECTED to REMAND this action to the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 5/30/2014. (anc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
EDWARD CURRY,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:13-cv-1607-WSD

DART CONTAINER
CORPORATION OF GEORGIA,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final
Report and Recommendation [14].
I.

BACKGROUND
On April 8, 2013, Plaintiff Edward Curry (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se,

initiated this action in the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia. In his Original
Complaint [1-1], Plaintiff generally alleged that he was wrongfully terminated by
his employer, Defendant Dart Container Corporation of Georgia (“Defendant”),
and that he had been given “unequal pay.”
On May 10, 2013, Defendant removed the action to this Court on the ground
that Plaintiff’s unspecified employment claims may “sound in” federal law. On
May 17, 2013, Defendant filed its Motion for a More Definite Statement.

Magistrate Judge Anand granted the Motion for a More Definite Statement and
ordered Plaintiff to specifically state the legal claims he is asserting in this action.
On September 26, 2013, Plaintiff filed his Amended Complaint, in response
to Judge Anand’s order, in which he asserts that he is asserting only a claim for
“wrongful termination” and not a claim arising under federal law.
On March 18, 2014, Judge Anand issued his R&R recommending that this
action be remanded to the state court. Judge Anand found that Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint shows that no federal claims are at issue in this action and
that the Court thus lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
Neither party filed objections to the R&R.
II.

DISCUSSION
A.

Legal Standard

After conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject, or modify a magistrate
judge’s report and recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (Supp. IV 2010);
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982) (per curiam). A
district judge “shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report
or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). If no party has objected to the report and recommendation,

2

a court conducts only a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714
F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.

Analysis

The parties do not object to the Magistrate Judge’s finding that Plaintiff’s
Amended Complaint, asserting only claims for wrongful termination, does not
assert federal questions and the Court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction
over this action. The Court does not find any error in this conclusion. See
Beneficial Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003); Holmes Group, Inc. v.
Vornado Air Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002). Because the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this matter, the action is required to be
remanded. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment it
appears that the district court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the case shall be
remanded.”).
III.

CONCLUSION
Accordingly, for the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Justin S. Anand’s Final

Report and Recommendation [14] is ADOPTED. The Clerk is DIRECTED to
REMAND this action to the State Court of Fulton County, Georgia.

3

SO ORDERED this 30th day of May, 2014.

4