Chapman v. Dodge County Human Services

Filing 5

ORDER ADOPTING 4 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS. Plaintiff's putative federal claims are dismissed with prejudice; state law claims dismissed without prejudice due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted and/or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A separate judgment will be entered. Signed by District Judge Tom S. Lee on 6/17/15 (copy mailed to plaintiff at 3745 Bailey Avenue #2, Jackson, MS 39213)(LWE)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI
JACKSON DIVISION
PATRICIA KAY CHAPMAN
VS.

CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15CV251TSL-RHW

DODGE COUNTY HUMAN SERVICES
ORDER
This case is before the court on the report and
recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker
entered on May 29, 2015, recommending dismissal based on
plaintiff’s failure to state a claim upon which relief may be
granted and/or for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Pro se

plaintiff Patricia Kay Chapman has failed to file an objection and
the time for doing so has since expired.

Having considered the

report and recommendation and the complaint, the court concludes
that the report and recommendation is adopted insofar as it
recommends dismissal of the putative federal claims for failure to
state a claim upon which relief may be granted.1

1

As stated above, the report and recommendation also
recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. While the court agrees that the complaint is
not a model of clarity, it is clear that by it, Chapman does seek
recovery either under the constitution or other, unspecified
federal statutes. In federal question cases under § 1331, “where
the complaint . . . is so drawn as to seek recovery directly under
the Constitution or laws of the United States, the federal court,
but for two possible exceptions . . . must entertain the suit”.
Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 681-82, 66 S. Ct. 773, 776, 90 L. Ed.
939 (1946). The two exceptions are where the federal question

It is therefore ordered that the report and recommendation of
Magistrate Judge Robert H. Walker entered May 29, 2015, is adopted
as the opinion of this court to the extent as set forth above.
Based on the foregoing, it is ordered that plaintiff’ putative
federal claims are dismissed with prejudice.2

As the court

declines to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over plaintiff’s
putative state law claims, these claims are dismissed without
prejudice.
A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
SO ORDERED AND ADJUDGED this the 17th day of June, 2015.

/s/ Tom S. Lee
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

“clearly appears to be immaterial and made solely for the purpose
of obtaining jurisdiction or where such a claim is wholly
insubstantial and frivolous.” The court is not persuaded that
either exception applies in this instance.
2

The court is, of course, cognizant that “[g]enerally a
district court errs in dismissing a pro se complaint for failure
to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) without giving the plaintiff
an opportunity to amend.” Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054
(5th Cir. 1998). Here, given that plaintiff had a right to file
an objection to the report and recommendation and thereby either
seek leave to amend her complaint or explain why it was sufficient
as filed, the court is convinced that plaintiff had notice of the
court’s intention to dismiss the claims and a fair opportunity to
respond. See Bazrowx v. Scott, 136 F.3d 1053, 1054 fn. 5 (5th Cir.
1998).
2