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)

Download PDF
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-

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?