Chartwell Preston Mill, LLC v. Doughty et al
Filing
5
OPINION AND ORDER adopting Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker's Final Report and Recommendation 2 and remanding this action to the Magistrate Court of Coweta County, Georgia. Signed by Judge William S. Duffey, Jr. on 6/12/18. (ddm)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA
ATLANTA DIVISION
CHARTWELL PRESTON MILL,
LLC,
Plaintiff,
v.
1:18-cv-1830-WSD
CHERYL DOUGHTY, SEAN
BELL, SHAWN HAWKINS, and All
Other Occupants,
Defendant.
OPINION AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker’s Final
Report and Recommendation [2] (“Final R&R”), which recommends remanding
this action to the Magistrate Court of Coweta County, Georgia.
I.
BACKGROUND
On December 4, 2017, Plaintiff Chartwell Preston Mill (“Plaintiffs”)
initiated a dispossessory proceeding against Defendants Cheryl Doughty, Sean
Bell, and Shawn Hawkins (“Defendants”) in the Magistrate Court of Coweta
County (the “Coweta County Action”).1 ([1.1] at 10). On April 27, 2018,
Defendants, proceeding pro se, filed their Notice of Removal [1.1] seeking to
remove the Coweta County Action to this Court. Defendant argues removal is
proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441(b)-(c), (e),
29 U.S.C. §§ 1443(1)-(2), and 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). ([1.1] at 1). Defendant also
alleges, without further explanation, that the Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the
Bill of Rights, various Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the International
Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the Universal Declaration of Human
Rights. ([1.1] at 1-2).
On May 17, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued her Final R&R,
recommending that this action be remanded to the Magistrate Court of Coweta
County for lack of jurisdiction. The parties did not file 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);
1
The property at issue is located at 118 Jefferson Pkwy, #1007, Newnan,
Georgia 30263. ([1.1] at 10). The Magistrate Court of Coweta County assigned
the matter Case No. 2018CI01503. (Id.).
2
Williams v. Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732 (11th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, 459 U.S.
1112 (1983). 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 objections have not been asserted, the Court must
conduct a plain error review of the record. United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093,
1095 (11th Cir. 1983), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984). Where, as here, the
parties have not filed objections to the Final R&R, the Court reviews it for plain
error.
B.
Analysis
Federal courts “have an independent obligation to determine whether
subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the absence of a challenge from any
party.” Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). The Eleventh Circuit
consistently has held that “a court should inquire into whether it has subject matter
jurisdiction at the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is well
settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction
sua sponte whenever it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co.,
168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). “Federal courts exercise limited jurisdiction
and generally can hear only actions that either meet the requirements for diversity
3
jurisdiction or that involve a federal question.” Kivisto v. Kulmala, 497 F. App’x
905, 906 (11th Cir. 2012). Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75,000 and the suit is between citizens of different states.
28 U.S.C § 1332(a). “[F]ederal-question jurisdiction may be based on a civil
action alleging a violation of the Constitution, or asserting a federal cause of action
established by a congressionally created expressed or implied private remedy for
violations of a federal statute.” Jairath v. Dyer, 154 F.3d 1280, 1282 (11th Cir.
1998). “The removing party bears the burden of proof regarding the existence of
federal subject matter jurisdiction.” City of Vestavia Hills v. Gen. Fidelity Ins.
Co., 676 F.3d 1310, 1313 n.1 (11th Cir. 2012).
The Magistrate Judge concluded that “it is clear that the Court lacks subject
matter jurisdiction over the instant lawsuit.” ([2] at 2). The Magistrate Judge
found that, “[i]n this case, Plaintiff’s dispossessory claim arises solely under state
law.” (Id. at 4). The Magistrate Judge found further that, “[a]lthough Defendant
argues the matter is removable on the grounds that the dispossessory action
violated various federal laws, the Bill of Rights, and the United States Constitution,
a federal question present in a counterclaim or defense is not a proper basis for
removal of a complaint.” (Id.). The Magistrate Judge found finally that
Defendant’s Notice of Removal fails to allege facts sufficient to show that the
4
parties are diverse or that the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold is met. (Id. at 5).
Defendant therefore has not shown that the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over this state dispossessory proceeding, and this action is required to
be remanded to the Magistrate Court of Coweta County, Georgia. The Court finds
no plain error in the Magistrate Judge’s findings and recommendations.
III.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker’s Final
Report and Recommendation [2] is ADOPTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is REMANDED to the
Magistrate Court of Coweta County, Georgia.
SO ORDERED this 12th day of June, 2018.
5
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?