Ward v. Ketch

Filing 10

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting 6 Report and Recommendations.; finding as moot 8 Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 9/8/2014. Mailed to pro se party Eddie Lee Ward by regular mail. (smg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

EDDIE LEE WARD,

)
)
Plaintiff,
)
)
v.
)
)
KETCH,
)
)
Defendant.
)
____________________________________

Case No. 14-1252-EFM

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
Plaintiff Eddie Lee Ward filed this Complaint pro se on August 11, 2014, against
KETCH. In completing the civil complaint form, under “jurisdiction” he completed the first
question of the diversity section, noting that he is a citizen of Kansas, but did not complete the
rest of that section. Under the “grounds other than diversity” section, a very brief stray mark
appears in the box for 28 U.S.C. § 1343, but it is not clear that he meant to mark that section.
For his statement of claim on that form, he stated “Defendant would not allow me to visit my
mother Thanksgiving 2013 or Christmas 2013 (sic).”
Plaintiff also filed a motion to appoint counsel and a motion for leave to proceed in forma
pauperis. United States Magistrate Judge Kenneth Gale issued an Order granting Plaintiff’s in
forma pauperis motion, denying his motion to appoint counsel, and issuing a Report and
Recommendation (R & R) that the Complaint be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. The R & R
noted that diversity of citizenship was lacking, as Plaintiff is a Kansas citizen, and defendant,
although its state of incorporation was not shown, was located in Wichita, Kansas and was
formed with the stated purpose of helping disabled Kansans. Further, the R & R noted that the

allegations contained in the Complaint, denial of visits with his mother, do not raise a federal
question.
Plaintiff filed a timely response which is treated as both a motion for reconsideration of
his motion to appoint counsel, and as Objections to the recommendation for dismissal. This
document complains that he is unable to argue his case on his own, and argues that he should be
allowed to see his mother. No response regarding jurisdiction was made.
The Court, having considered the R & R and the Plaintiff’s response to it, finds that the R
& R is well founded and that no sufficient reason has been shown which would prevent the Court
from adopting it.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation (Doc. 6) is
adopted by the Court, and the case is therefore dismissed.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion for Reconsideration of the Magistrate
Judge’s Order denying the Motion to Appoint Counsel (Doc. 8) is DENIED AS MOOT.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 8th day of September, 2014.

ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE