Cook v. Crownover

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendations. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 1/30/2018. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2018, that plaintiff's claims, along with this case, are dismissed without prejudice. Mailed to pro se party Shay Dee Cook by regular mail. (sz)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
SHAY DEE COOK,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-1307-JTM-KGG
ROCKY CROWNOVER,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), filed December 19, 2017 (Dkt. 5), recommending that the
court dismiss plaintiff’s claims for failure to state a claim under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 8(a) and 12(b)(6). Additionally, the Magistrate Judge notes that defendant is
listed as a resident of Wichita, Kansas, in the case caption.
jurisdiction exists because the parties are not diverse.

Therefore, no federal

The Magistrate Judge also

recommends dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because plaintiff cites a
Kansas statute in support of his claim of fraudulent conveyance.
The Magistrate Judge notified plaintiff of his ability to file objections within 14
days to the R&R. On January 3, 2018, plaintiff filed a response (Dkt. 7) and stated that
he cited a state statute where a federal statute was required. He also laid claim on
property located at 2431 N. Waco, Wichita, Kansas. Plaintiff further claims that the

-1-

deed falls under the fraudulent conveyance act case Gambone v. Lite Rock Drywall, 288 F.
App’x 9, 12 (3d Cir. 2008).
Having reviewed the R&R and plaintiff’s response, the court finds that the
Magistrate Judge fully and accurately considered plaintiff’s claims and governing legal
authority. Plaintiff references “federal statute 28 Appendix 18,” but this statute does
not support a claim for relief. (Dkt. 7, at 1).
The court previously dismissed plaintiff’s case in No. 17-1059-JTM-KGG for lack
of federal jurisdiction. (Dkt. 9, at 2). The court further found that plaintiff’s claims
appeared to involve a dispute arising entirely under state law. Therefore, ancillary
jurisdiction, as discussed in Gambone v. Lite Rock Drywall, 288 F. App’x 9, 12 (3d Cir.
2008), does not provide a basis for federal jurisdiction. See id. (“[A]ncillary jurisdiction
lets prevailing litigants go to the District Court that entered their judgment for help in
resolving matters related to its enforcement.”). This court did not enter judgment in
favor of plaintiff, and therefore, lacks jurisdiction to enforce a related matter. The court
adopts the R&R and dismisses this action.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this 30th day of January, 2018, that plaintiff’s
claims, along with this case, are dismissed without prejudice.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. Thomas Marten, Judge

-2-