Louis v. Smart Choice Title Loan

Filing 12

ORDER RULING ON REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS adopting 8 Report and Recommendations, dismissing the action without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. Signed by Honorable Joseph F Anderson, Jr on 07/09/2010. (bshr, )

L o u i s v. Smart Choice Title Loan

D o c . 12

U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT D IS T R IC T OF SOUTH CAROLINA

E f f e l J. Louis,

) ) P l a in tif f , ) v. ) ) S m a rt Choice Title Loan, ) ) D e f e n d a n t. ) _________________________________ )

C /A No. 3:10-855-JFA-JRM

ORDER

P la in tif f , proceeding pro se, brings this action against the defendant concerning a c o n tra c t dispute over a title loan. T h e Magistrate Judge assigned to this action 1 has prepared a Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n and opines that the action should be dismissed for lack of federal ju ris d ic tio n . Specifically, the Magistrate Judge suggests that this court does not have d iv e rsity jurisdiction, nor does it have federal question jurisdiction. With regard to diversity ju r is d ic tio n , the Magistrate Judge correctly points out that plaintiff's service document in d ica tes that both the plaintiff and the defendant are residents of South Carolina. With re g a rd to federal question jurisdiction, the Magistrate Judge suggests that there are no facts a lle g e d in the complaint which implicate federal law.

The Magistrate Judge's review is made in accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civil Rule 73.02. The Magistrate Judge makes only a recommendation to this court. The recommendation has no presumptive weight, and the responsibility to make a final determination remains with the court. Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976). The court is charged with making a de novo determination of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which specific objection is made, and the court may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, or recommit the matter to the Magistrate Judge with instructions. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1).

1

1

Dockets.Justia.com

T h e plaintiff was advised of his right to file objections to the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , which was entered on the docket on April 26, 2010. The plaintiff has filed a one-page objection memorandum conceding that the amount of controversy in this action is less than $75,000. Alternatively, the plaintiff suggests that the defendant's headquarters is located in Tampa, Florida. However, even if there exists complete diversity among the p a rtie s (that is, the plaintiff is from one state and the defendant from another state), the a m o u n t of controversy in this case does not meet or exceed $75,000 as is required under the s ta tu te . 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). Therefore, the court is without jurisdiction to hear this case. After a careful review of the record, the applicable law, the Report and R e c o m m e n d a tio n , and the plaintiff's objections thereto, the court finds the Magistrate J u d g e 's recommendation to be proper and incorporates the Report herein by reference. A c c o rd in g ly, this action is dismissed without prejudice and without issuance and service of process. IT IS SO ORDERED.

Ju ly 9, 2010 C o lu m b ia , South Carolina

J o s e p h F. Anderson, Jr. U n ite d States District Judge

2