Rahab v. Freeman et al

Filing 23

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting Report and Recommendations re 17 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge Monti L. Belot on 06/02/2015.Mailed to pro se party Othman A. Rahab by regular mail. (aa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

OTHMAN A. RAHAB aka
OTHEL GRAY, JR.,
Plaintiff,
v.
JESSICA FREEMAN and
AMERICAN CAB CO.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CIVIL ACTION
No.

15-1138-MLB

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

Magistrate Judge Karen Humphreys’ report and recommendation

(Doc. 17) recommending dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);
2)
I.

Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. 21).

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 against defendants alleging he

suffered damages from a car accident which occurred in Andover,

Kansas.

Plaintiff and both defendants are alleged to be Kansas

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

In his

objection, plaintiff makes no attempt at establishing a basis for this
court’s

jurisdiction.

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.
28 U.S.C. § 1332.

All parties in this case are Kansas citizens.

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 Humphreys’ Order is
OVERRULED (Doc. 21) and the court adopts the report and recommendation
in its entirety. (Doc. 17).

This action is dismissed for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction.

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

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 2nd

day of June 2015, at Wichita, Kansas.

s/ Monti Belot
Monti L. Belot
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

-2-