Hopson v. Chapin et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Monti L. Belot on 3/31/2015.Mailed to pro se party Rita Hopson by regular mail. (smg)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

RITA HOPSON,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiff,
v.
RENEE CHAPIN and JANA READER
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION
No.

15-1044-MLB

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This case comes before the court on the following:
1)

Magistrate Kenneth Gale’s report and recommendation (Doc.

5) recommending dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);
2)
I.

Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 7).

Standards
The standards this court must employ upon review of plaintiff’s

objection to the Recommendation and Report are clear.

See generally

28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72. First, only those portions
of the Recommendation and Report plaintiff specifically identified as
objectionable will be reviewed.

See Gettings v. McKune, 88 F. Supp.

2d 1205, 1211 (D. Kan. 2000).

Second, review of the identified

portions is de novo.

Thus, the Recommendation and Report is given no

presumptive weight.

See Griego v. Padilla, 64 F.3d 580, 583-84 (10th

Cir. 1995).
II.

Analysis
Plaintiff filed this action alleging defendants made slanderous

and defamatory statements to Via Christi, her employer, which resulted
in

her

termination.

Plaintiff

and

both

defendants

are

Kansas

residents.
The magistrate held that plaintiff’s claims did not invoke this
court’s jurisdiction and, therefore, recommended dismissal.

In her

objection, plaintiff requests that the court “not dismiss [her] case
because one line was not completed.” (Doc. 7). Presumably, plaintiff
is referring to the magistrate’s statement that the only line checked
regarding jurisdiction was diversity.

(Doc. 5 at 6).

Plaintiff,

however, does not offer any additional basis for jurisdiction in her
objection.
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.

In an action

which does not involve a federal question, such as this one, both
parties must be citizens of different states.
parties in this case are Kansas citizens.

28 U.S.C. § 1332.

All

Therefore, this court does

not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action and it must be
dismissed.

Laughlin v. KMART Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir.

1995).
III. Conclusion
Plaintiff’s objection to Magistrate Judge Gale’s Order are
OVERRULED (Doc. 7) and the court adopts the report and recommendation
in its entirety. (Doc. 5).

This action is dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this

31st

day of March 2015, at Wichita, Kansas.
s/ Monti Belot
Monti L. Belot
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-