Thomas Apartment Management v. Betts
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER adopting that Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson's Final Report and Recommendation 3 is ADOPTED. This action is REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of Fulton County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 7/2/2014. (anc)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
THOMAS APARTMENT
MANAGEMENT as agent for
GREENBRIAR MILL TOWNHOMES,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:14-cv-1667-WSD
ELISHA BETTS,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson’s
Final Report and Recommendation [3] (“R&R”), which recommends remanding
this dispossessory action to the Magistrate Court of Fulton County, Georgia.
I.
BACKGROUND
On May 14, 2014, Plaintiff Thomas Apartment Management as agent for
Greenbriar Mill Townhomes (“Plaintiff”) initiated a dispossessory proceeding
against its tenant Defendant Elisha Betts (“Defendant”) in the Magistrate Court of
Fulton County, Georgia. The Complaint seeks possession of premises currently
occupied by Defendant, plus past due rent, late fees, and costs.
On May 30, 2014, Defendant, proceeding pro se, removed the case to this
Court by filing her 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. She claims
in her 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 June 3, 2014, Magistrate Judge Johnson granted Defendant’s application
to proceed IFP. Judge Johnson also considered sua sponte the question of federal
jurisdiction and recommends that the Court remand this case to the state court.
Judge Johnson 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 Johnson concluded that the Court does not have federal
question jurisdiction over this matter.1
There are no objections to the R&R.
1
Judge Johnson further noted that the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction
over this matter because both Plaintiff and Defendant appear to be citizens of
Georgia.
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).2 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 Walter E. Johnson’s
Final Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED. This action is
REMANDED to the Magistrate Court of Fulton County, Georgia.
SO ORDERED this 2nd day of July, 2014.
2
The Court also does not find plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s conclusion that
the Court lacks diversity jurisdiction over this matter. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)(1)
(providing that diversity jurisdiction exists over civil actions between “citizens of
different States”).
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?