Pirvu v. Hammonds
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Janet F. Kings Final Report and Recommendation 3 and remanding this action to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 8/25/16. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
MANUELA PIRVU,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:16-cv-2516-WSD
CHARMAINE HAMMONDS,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
Report and Recommendation [3] (“R&R”). The R&R recommends this action be
remanded to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County, Georgia.
I.
BACKGROUND
On July 12, 2016, Defendant Charmaine Hammonds (“Defendant”) filed her
application for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”) [1] and notice of
removal [2]. Defendant seeks removal of a dispossessory action brought by
Plaintiff Manuela Pirvu (“Plaintiff”) in the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County,
Georgia.
On July 14, 2016, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R. The Magistrate
Judge found that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this action, and
recommends this action be remanded to the Magistrate Court of Fulton County.
Plaintiff did not file any objections to the R&R, and has not otherwise taken any
action this case.
II.
ANALYSIS
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 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983).
Where, as here, no party objects to the R&R, the Court conducts a plain error
review of the record. See United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th Cir.
1983).
B.
Discussion
The Magistrate Judge determined that Plaintiff’s Complaint does not contain
any federal claims, and removal based on federal question jurisdiction is improper.
That Defendant asserts in her Notice of Removal defenses or counterclaims based
on federal law cannot confer federal subject-matter jurisdiction over this action.
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).
2
Because Defendant does not assert, and there is no evidence to show, that
the parties are diverse, the Magistrate Judge determined the Court does not have
diversity jurisdiction. She found that, even if Defendant could show the parties
were diverse, Defendant cannot meet the amount-in-controversy requirement to
establish diversity jurisdiction. (R&R at 5). The Magistrate Judge concluded that
the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over this state dispossessory proceeding,
and recommends the Court remand this action to the Magistrate Court of Gwinnett
County. The Court finds no plain error in these findings and recommendation, and
this action is remanded. See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Janet F. King’s Final
Report and Recommendation [3] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the
Magistrate Court of Gwinnett County.
SO ORDERED this 25th day of August, 2016.
3
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?