Currie v. CitiMortgage, Inc. et al

Filing 48

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: The Motion to Remand filed by defendant CitiMortgage is GRANTED, and the detainer action (Docket No. 16-1) is REMANDED to the General Sessions Court for Davidson County, Tennessee for further proceedings. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the CitiMortgage defendants (Docket No. 11) is GRANTED, and all claims against these defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.The Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Haslam and Lilliard (Docket No. 19) is GRANTED, and all claims against th ese defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Motion to Dismiss filed by the Harris defendants (Docket No.30) is GRANTED, and all claims against these defendants are DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. To the extent that filings by the plaintiff on Novem ber 27, 2013(Docket Nos. 22, 23) and on December 16, 2013 (Docket No. 26) are considered motions, they are hereby DENIED. It is so ORDERED. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this cause. Signed by District Judge Aleta A. Trauger on 9/15/2014. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.) (xc: Clerk of Davidson County General Sessions Court by regular mail). (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.) (ds)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
LARRY LEE CURRIE,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil No. 3:13-1139
Judge Trauger
Magistrate Judge Knowles

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
On August 20, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation,
recommending that defendant CitiMortgage’s Motion to Remand be granted. (Docket No. 35)
On August 21, 2014, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation, recommending
that three Motions to Dismiss be granted. (Docket No. 36) The pro se plaintiff has filed an
Objection which appears to be directed to both Reports and Recommendations (Docket No. 44),
and all defendants have filed responses to the plaintiff’s Objection (Docket Nos. 45 through 47).1
When a magistrate judge issues a report and recommendation regarding a dispositive
pretrial matter, the district court must review de novo any portion of the report and
recommendation to which a specific objection is made. FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b); 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(C); United States v. Curtis, 237 F.3d 598, 603 (6th Cir. 2001); Massey v. City of

1

The CitiMortgage defendants assert that the plaintiff’s Objection is untimely. This is in
error. Objections to reports and recommendations are to be filed within fourteen (14) days after
service of the report and recommendation. Although both Reports and Recommendations were
mailed by certified mail to the pro se plaintiff on August 21, 2014, the signed Receipt for the
certified mail (Docket No. 38) was returned to the court for filing on August 26, 2014. The court
concludes that the plaintiff received the two Reports and Recommendations sometime between
August 22 and August 25, 2014. Even if the plaintiff received them on August 22, 2014,
because three days are added to the fourteen days pursuant to Rule 6(d), FED. R. CIV. P., the
filing of the Objection on September 8 would be timely.

Ferndale, 7 F.3d 506, 510 (6th Cir. 1993). Objections must be specific; an objection to the
report in general is not sufficient and will result in waiver of further review. See Miller v.
Currie, 50 F.3d 373, 380 (6th Cir. 1995).
As recited in the Reports and Recommendations, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against
numerous defendants in this court on October 11, 2013 (Docket No. 1) and an “Addendum
Complaint” on October 18, 2013 (Docket No. 3). Then, on November 13, 2013, he attempted to
remove to this court and consolidate with this suit a detainer action filed by defendant
CitiMortgage in the General Sessions Court for Davidson County, Tennessee. (Docket No. 13)
It is this detainer action that CitiMortgage seeks to remand to the Davidson County General
Sessions Court. The plaintiff did not respond to the Motion to Remand, but his Objection
document appears to assert that this court has jurisdiction over the detainer action under its
diversity jurisdiction. (Docket No. 44 at 3) This assertion is in error. In order for diversity
jurisdiction to exist, the matter in controversy must exceed $75,000. Here, it is clear that the
detainer warrant seeks no rent, damages, or any other monetary award from Mr. Currie. The
detainer warrant states clearly that the claim is for “Possession Only.” (Docket No. 16-1 at 1)
As such, diversity jurisdiction does not exist. No other assertions in the plaintiff’s Objection
document go to the merits of the Report and Recommendation recommending that the Motion to
Remand be granted.
As to the Report and Recommendation related to the three Motions to Dismiss, again the
plaintiff’s Objection simply asserts that he belongs in federal court under diversity jurisdiction.
As already discussed, this assertion is in error. All three Motions to Dismiss give solid grounds
for dismissal of the plaintiff’s claims, which were filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a civil rights

2

statute requiring state actors or actions under color of state law. The plaintiff makes no specific
objection to the Magistrate Judge’s conclusions about these three Motions to Dismiss.
In general, the plaintiff asserts in his Objection document that the court should be lenient
with him because he is a pro se plaintiff. However, As the Sixth Circuit has recognized, pro se
plaintiffs must comply with the FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE. See Jourdan v. Jabe, 951
F.2d 108 (6th Cir. 1991) (no persuasive reason why a pro se plaintiff should be accorded special
consideration under the circumstances, where plaintiff failed to adhere to readily comprehended
court deadlines of which he was well aware); Brock v. Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339, 343 (6th Cir.
1988) (court adopts rule that no special treatment was to be afforded ordinary non-prisoner civil
litigants who proceed pro se); Wells v. Brown, 891 F.2d 591, 594 (6th Cir. 1989) (citing cases in
which courts have required pro se parties to comply with basic pleading requirements). In
McNeil v. United States, 508 U.S. 106, 113 (1993), the United States Supreme Court stated:
[W]e have never suggested that procedural rules in ordinary civil
litigation should be interpreted so as to excuse mistakes by those
who proceed without counsel. As we have noted before, ‘in the
long run, experience teaches that strict adherence to the procedural
requirements specified by the legislature is the best guarantee of
even handed administration of the law. See also Brock v.
Hendershott, 840 F.2d 339 at 343 (“The application of the law
must be equal, even for those who have no attorney.”)
For the reasons stated herein, the plaintiff’s Objection is OVERRULED, and the Reports
and Recommendations (Docket Nos. 35, 36) are ACCEPTED and made the findings of fact and
conclusions of law of this court. For the reasons expressed therein, the following are hereby
ORDERED:
1.

The Motion to Remand filed by defendant CitiMortgage is GRANTED,
and the detainer action (Docket No. 16-1) is REMANDED to the General
Sessions Court for Davidson County, Tennessee for further proceedings.
3

2.

The Motion to Dismiss filed by the CitiMortgage defendants (Docket No.
11) is GRANTED, and all claims against these defendants are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

3.

The Motion to Dismiss filed by defendants Haslam and Lilliard (Docket
No. 19) is GRANTED, and all claims against these defendants are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

4.

The Motion to Dismiss filed by the Harris defendants (Docket No.
30) is GRANTED, and all claims against these defendants are
DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE.

5.

To the extent that filings by the plaintiff on November 27, 2013
(Docket Nos. 22, 23) and on December 16, 2013 (Docket No. 26)
are considered motions, they are hereby DENIED.

It is so ORDERED. This Order shall constitute the final judgment in this cause.
Enter this 15th day of September 2014.

________________________________
ALETA A. TRAUGER
U.S. District Judge

4