Jones v. Ocwen Loan Servicing, LLC et al

Filing 34

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 28) is adopted and approved, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Any pending Motions are denied as moot, and the Clerk is directed to close the file. This Order sh all constitute the final judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58. Plaintiffs Motion for Review 31 is GRANTED. Plaintiff's Motion to Amend Complaint 33 is DENIED as futile. Signed by District Judge Todd J. Campbell on 7/21/15. (xc:Pro se party by regular and certified mail.)(DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(am)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION

YVONNE C. JONES
v.
OCWEB LOAN SERVICING, LLC,
et al.

)
)
) NO. 3-14-2328
) JUDGE CAMPBELL
)
)

ORDER
Pending before the Court are a Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket
No. 28), Plaintiff’s Motion for Review (Docket No. 31), Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File Reply
(Docket No. 32), and Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint (Docket No. 33).
Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3) and Local Rule 72.03(b)(3), the
Court has reviewed de novo the Report and Recommendation, Plaintiff’s Motions, and the file.
Plaintiff’s Motion for Review is GRANTED, and the Court has reviewed the Report and
Recommendation and Plaintiff’s filings as set forth above. Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to File
Reply (which requests that she be allowed to file a reply motion to amend) is moot, as the Plaintiff
has already filed her Motion to Amend Complaint. Plaintiff’s Motion to Amend Complaint is
DENIED as futile, because the proposed Amended Complaint does not address the jurisdictional
problems identified in the Report and Recommendation or change the result recommended therein.
Plaintiff’s Complaints (Docket Nos. 1, 15 and 33-1) fail to allege a jurisdictional basis for
this case to be in this federal Court. Plaintiff’s original Complaint (Docket No. 1) does not address
a jurisdictional basis. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint (Docket No. 15) and proposed Second
Amended Complaint (Docket No. 33-1) both assert that jurisdiction is proper in Davidson County,
Tennessee, “as all of the underlying transactions referred to herein occurred and continue to occur

in this State.” Plaintiff does not allege that jurisdiction is proper in federal court rather than state
court.
As noted by the Magistrate Judge, jurisdiction in federal court is based upon either federal
question or diversity of citizenship. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. Plaintiff has pled neither. Plaintiff
has failed to identify a federal question at issue in this matter, and she has failed to allege that the
parties are citizens of different states as required to show diversity jurisdiction.
Accordingly, the Report and Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Docket No. 28) is
adopted and approved, and this action is DISMISSED without prejudice. Any pending Motions are
denied as moot, and the Clerk is directed to close the file. This Order shall constitute the final
judgment in this case pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

___________________________________
TODD J. CAMPBELL
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2