Jordan v. Chevrolet Customer Assistance Center

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 7 . IT IS ORDERED that Jordans Complaint be and hereby is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject- atter jurisdiction and/or improper venue. Signed by Judge Susie Morgan.(bwn)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
STANLEY JORDAN, SR.,
Plaintiff

CIVIL ACTION

VERSUS

NO. 15-3463

CHEVROLET CUSTOMER
ASSISTANCE CENTER,
Defendant

SECTION: “E” (3)

ORDER
On August 13, 2015, Plaintiff Stanley Jordan filed the present action in this Court
against Defendant, the Chevrolet Customer Assistance Center. 1 In sum, Jordan sues the
Chevrolet Customer Assistance Center for problems he has allegedly experienced with a
number of his vehicles.
Because the Court has an obligation, at all stages of the litigation, to examine the
basis upon which federal subject matter jurisdiction rests, Magistrate Judge Knowles
issued a Report and Recommendations examining whether the Court has subject matter
jurisdiction over Jordan’s Complaint. 2 Judge Knowles concluded, on November 3, 2015,
that “there is no basis for federal jurisdiction in this proceeding.” 3 Jordan was ordered to
submit any objections he may have to the Report and Recommendations by November
17, 2015. Petitioner then filed two documents: (1) a motion for leave to file an amended
complaint; 4 and (2) an Objection to the Report and Recommendations. 5
The Court has reviewed both the motion for leave and the objection filed by Jordan,
and has treated both documents as objections to the Report and Recommendations issued

R. Docs. 1, 6. Jordan’s Complaint was initially marked deficient for failure to pay the filing fee and/or
submit an in forma pauperis application. R. Doc. 2. Jordan subsequently remedied the deficiencies.
2 See generally R. Doc. 7.
3 R. Doc. 7 at 3.
4 R. Doc. 8.
5 R. Doc. 9.
1

1

by Judge Knowles. After reviewing Jordan’s pleadings and the arguments stated therein,
the Court concludes that Jordan has altogether failed to identify a proper basis for federal
subject matter jurisdiction over his Complaint. For that reason, the Court hereby
approves the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendations and adopts it as its
opinion.
Accordingly;
IT IS ORDERED that Jordan’s Complaint be and hereby is DISMISSED
WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and/or improper
venue.
New Orleans, Louisiana, this 17th day of November, 2015.
_______________________ ________
SUSIE MORGAN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2