1500 River Brook LLC v. Lumpkins

Filing 5

OPINION AND ORDER ADOPTING the 3 Final Report and Recommendation. This action is REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/31/2014. (anc)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
1500 RIVER BROOK LLC d/b/a
BRIDGEWATER APARTMENTS,
Plaintiff,
v.

1:14-cv-169-WSD

LESLIE LUMPKINS,
Defendant.

OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
Report and Recommendation [3] (“R&R”), which recommends remanding this
dispossessory action to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.
I.

BACKGROUND
On January 10, 2014, Plaintiff 1500 River Brook LLC (“Plaintiff”) initiated

a dispossessory proceeding against its tenant Defendant Leslie Lumpkins
(“Defendant”) in the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia. The
Complaint seeks possession of premises currently occupied by Defendant, plus
past due rent, late fees, and costs.

On January 21, 2014, Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the case to this
Court by filing his Notice of Removal and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) [1]. Defendant appears to assert that there is federal subjectmatter jurisdiction based on the existence of a question of federal law. He claims
in his Notice of Removal that this action violates “15 USCA 1692,” “Rule 60 of
the federal Rule of Civil Procedure [sic],” and the “14th Amendment of the U.S.
Constitution.”
On October 29, 2013, Magistrate Judge King granted Defendant’s
application to proceed IFP. Judge King also considered sua sponte the question of
federal jurisdiction and recommends that the Court remand this case to the state
court.
Judge King found that Plaintiff’s underlying pleading shows that this action
is a dispossessory proceeding that does not invoke a federal question. Noting that
a federal law defense or counterclaim alone is not sufficient to confer federal
jurisdiction, Judge King concluded that the Court does not have federal question
jurisdiction over this matter.
There are no objections to the R&R.

2

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); 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). With respect to those findings and recommendations to which a party
has not asserted objections, the Court must conduct a plain error review of the
record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir. 1983) (per curiam).
B.

Analysis

Defendant does not object to the R&R’s conclusion that Plaintiff’s
Complaint does not present a federal question. The Court does not find any error
in this conclusion. It is well-settled that federal-question jurisdiction exists only
when a federal question is presented on the face of a plaintiff’s well-pleaded
complaint and that the assertions of defenses or counterclaims based on federal law
cannot confer federal question jurisdiction over a cause of action. See Beneficial
Nat’l Bank v. Anderson, 539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air

3

Circulation Systems, Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002). This action is thus
required to be remanded to the state court. 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
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final

Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED. This action is REMANDED to
the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.

SO ORDERED this 31st day of March, 2014.

4