Hammond Residential Winnstead Apartments CSS Services, Inc. v. Coleman
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Linda T. Walker's Final Report and Recommendation 2 and remanding this action to the Magistrate Court of Clayton County. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr on 3/22/18. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
HAMMOND RESIDENTIAL
WINNSTEAD APARTMENTS CSS
SERVICES, INC.,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:17-cv-4423-WSD
QUANESHA COLEMAN and ALL
OTHER OCCUPANTS,
Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker’s Final
Report and Recommendation [2] (“Final R&R”). The R&R recommends this
action be remanded to the Magistrate Court of Clayton County.
I.
BACKGROUND
On October 11, 2017, Plaintiff Hammond Residential Winnstead
Apartments CSS Services, Inc. (“Hammond Residential”) initiated a dispossessory
proceeding (“Complaint”) against Defendants in the Magistrate Court of Clayton
County, Georgia.1 ([1.2] Notice of Removal at 5). The Complaint seeks
possession of premises currently occupied by Defendants, plus past due rent, late
fees and costs, totaling approximately $1,600.
1
Case No. 2017CM24535.
On November 6, 2017, Defendant Quanesha Coleman (“Coleman”),
proceeding pro se, removed the Clayton County action to this Court by filing her
Notice of Removal and Application to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP
Application”). Coleman claims in the Notice of Removal that “Respondent”
violated the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1692 et seq.
(“FDCPA”) and Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “having a legal
duty to abort eviction pursuant to O.C.G.A. 51-1-6 [sic],” and the Due Process
Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.” ([1.2] Notice of Removal at 3).
On February 28, 2018, Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker granted
Coleman’s IFP Application and issued her Final R&R, recommending that this
action be remanded pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) to the Magistrate Court of
Clayton County for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. ([2]). No objections to the
Final R&R have been filed.
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).
2
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 the Complaint does not contain any
federal claims, and removal based on federal question jurisdiction is improper.
([2] at 3). The Magistrate Judge also determined that Defendant failed to plead
diversity jurisdiction s and that, even if alleged, diversity does not provide a proper
basis for removal according to 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2). (Id. at 4). 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 Clayton County. The Court finds no plain error in the
Magistrate Judge’s 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 Linda T. Walker’s Final
Report and Recommendation [2] is ADOPTED.
3
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the
Magistrate Court of Clayton County.
SO ORDERED this 22nd day of March 2018.
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?