Willis v. Mortgage Assistance Solutions

Filing 3

ORDER & REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS re 2 Complaint: The in forma pauperis motion is GRANTED. It is RECOMMENDED that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Objections to R&R due by 8/11/2005. Signed by Judge Norah McCann King on 7/27/05. (er )

Download PDF
Willis v. Mortgage Assistance Solutions Doc. 3 Case 2:05-cv-00730-EAS-NMK Document 3 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 1 of 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION THOMAS S. WILLIS, JR., Plaintiff, vs. Civil Action 2:05-cv-730 Judge Sargus Magistrate Judge King MORTGAGE ASSISTANCE SOLUTIONS, Defendant. ORDER AND REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION This matter is before the Court on plaintiff's motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Upon consideration, the Court finds the motion is meritorious, and therefore it is GRANTED. WHEREUPON, IT IS ORDERED THAT the plaintiff be allowed to prosecute this action without prepayment of fees or costs and that judicial officers who render services in this action shall do so as if the costs had been prepaid. However, after performing the initial screen of the complaint required by 28 U.S.C. 1915(e), the Court concludes that it lacks jurisdiction over the claim asserted in the complaint. The complaint seeks damages in the amount of $2,923.00 in connection with defendant's servicing of plaintiff's mortgage loan. The complaint does not assert a claim under federal law, but appears to invoke the Court's diversity jurisdiction. Although the parties appear to be of diverse citizenship, this Court is vested with diversity jurisdiction only where, in addition, "the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. ..." 28 U.S.C. 1332(a). Because the jurisdictional amount is not met, it is RECOMMENDED Dockets.Justia.com Case 2:05-cv-00730-EAS-NMK Document 3 Filed 07/28/2005 Page 2 of 2 that this action be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. 1915(e). If any party seeks review by the District Judge of this Report and Recommendation, that party may, within ten (10) days, file and serve on all parties objections to the Report and Recommendation, specifically designating this Report and Recommendation, and the part thereof in question, as well as the basis for objection thereto. 636(b)(1); F.R. Civ. P. 72(b). 28 U.S.C. Response to objections must be filed F.R. Civ. within ten (10) days after being served with a copy thereof. P. 72(b). The parties are specifically advised that failure to object to the Report and Recommendation will result in a waiver of the right to de novo review by the District Judge and of the right to appeal the decision of the District Court adopting the Report and Recommendation. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Smith v. Detroit Federation of Teachers, Local 231 etc., 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987); United States v. Walters, 638 F.2d 947 (6th Cir. 1981). July 27, 2005 s/Norah McCann King Norah McCann King United States Magistrate Judge 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?