Bussanmas v. Snider

Filing 6

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 5 of Magistrate Judge Suzanne Mitchell and denies plaintiff's motions 2 and 4 for leave to proceed in forma pauperis...plaintiff is ordered to pay the $400 filing fee by 08/06/2014 or his complaint will be dismissed without prejudice. Signed by Honorable Joe Heaton on 07/17/2014. (lam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
WESTERN DISTRICT OF OKLAHOMA
RON BUSSANMAS,
Plaintiff,
vs.
MIKE SNIDER,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. CIV-14-0327-HE

ORDER
Plaintiff Ron Bussanmas, appearing pro se, filed this action against defendant Mike
Snider to collect an allegedly unpaid debt. Consistent with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B),
plaintiff’s motions for in forma pauperis status were referred to Magistrate Judge Suzanne
Mitchell for consideration. Judge Mitchell has issued a Report and Recommendation
recommending that plaintiff’s motions to proceed in forma pauperis be denied and that
plaintiff be ordered to prepay the full $400 filing fee. Objections to the magistrate judge’s
Report and Recommendation were due by July 2, 2014. No objection was filed.
Plaintiff, having failed to object to the Report and Recommendation, has waived his
right to review of the factual and legal issues it addressed. United States v. 2121 E. 30th St.,
73 F.3d 1057, 1059 (10th Cir. 1996); see also 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the
court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” (emphasis added)).
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation [Doc. #5] is ADOPTED, and plaintiff’s
motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis [Doc. Nos. 2 & 4] are DENIED. Plaintiff
is ORDERED to pay the $400 filing fee by August 6, 2014, or his complaint will be

dismissed without prejudice.
It is doubtful whether subject matter jurisdiction exists in this case in any event. The
complaint does not make clear the basis for federal jurisdiction, but is apparently intended
to be based on diversity jurisdiction. However, neither the complaint nor the cover sheet
[Doc. #1-1] identify the state of residence of the defendant. Further, it appears the amount
sought by plaintiff is either $31,200 or $3,200 (the handwritten complaint is unclear).
However, either amount is less than the $75,000 at issue necessary to federal diversity
jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Therefore, if plaintiff elects to pay the full filing fee by
August 6, 2014, he shall, in addition, show cause by that date why his complaint should not
be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) (“If the
court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss
the action.”); see also Tuck v. United Servs. Auto. Ass'n, 859 F.2d 842, 844 (10th Cir. 1988)
(“If the parties do not raise the question of lack of jurisdiction, it is the duty of the federal
court to determine the matter sua sponte.”) (quoting Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495
F.2d 906, 909 (10th Cir. 1974)).
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 17th day of July, 2014.

2