Chan v. Park-Yuong Chan

Filing 25

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS: The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear error, adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment in accordance with this order and dismiss the case. Ordered by Chief Judge Carol Bagley Amon on 6/30/2015. (fwd for judgment) (Fernandez, Erica)

f,.

INC

u.1.01~

&'

.V.

;:··· DISTRICT COURT E.D .•Y.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

*

-----------------------------------------------------}(

8 ROOKLYN OFFICE
aROOKLYN OFFICE

TIFFANY CHAN,

Plaintiff,

JUL 1- 2015

*

NOT FOR PUBLICATION
MEMORANDUM & ORDER
I 3-CV-3331 (CBA)(VMS)

-againstJAMES PARK-YUONG CHAN,
Defendants.

-----------------------------------------------------}(
AMON, Chief United States District Judge.
Plaintiff Tiffany Chan commenced this quiet title action on June 11, 2013, invoking 28
U.S.C. § 1332 as the jurisdictional basis for bringing her state law claims in this Court.
Although Chan initially identified herself as a citizen of New York State, (Docket Entry ("D.E.")

# 1-1 ), Chan has since informed the Court that she, like the defendant, James Park-Yuong Chan,
is a Canadian citizen. (Affidavit of Tiffany Chen, ("Chan Aff.") D.E. # 11 iii! 3-5; Comp!. if 2;
Ans. if I.). On learning that this controversy involves two Canadian citizens and no citizen of a
state, the Honorable Vera M. Scanlon, United States Magistrate Judge, required the parties to
submit briefing as to whether the Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. This
Court has received the resulting Report and Recommendation ("R&R") of Magistrate Judge
Scanlon, dated April I, 2015, which recommends sua sponte dismissal of this action without
prejudice because the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over Chan's claim.
No party has objected to the R&R, and the time for doing so has passed. When deciding
whether to adopt a report and recommendation, a district court "may accept, reject, or modify, in
whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge." 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(l). To accept those portions of the R&R to which no timely objection has been made,
"a district court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record."
Jarvis v. N. Am. Globe" Fund, L.P., 823 F. Supp. 2d 161, 163 (E.D.N.Y. 2011) (internal
I

quotation marks and citation omitted). The Court has reviewed the record and, finding no clear
error, adopts the R&R as the opinion of the Court. The Clerk of Court is directed to enter
judgment in accordance with this order and dismiss the case.
SO ORDERED.
Dated: June£), 2015
Brooklyn, New York

s/Carol Bagley Amon/1
Carol Bagle
o
Chief United States Di

2

"ct Judge