Bell v. Ed Wallis III & Co.

Filing 24

ORDER: The Report and Recommendation (Doc. No. 22 ) is ADOPTED IN PART and DECLINED IN PART, and Bell's Motion to Review (Doc. No. 20 ) is DENIED AS MOOT.The Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. Th e Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58. Signed by Chief Judge Waverly D. Crenshaw, Jr on 10/12/2017. (DOCKET TEXT SUMMARY ONLY-ATTORNEYS MUST OPEN THE PDF AND READ THE ORDER.)(ab)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
NASHVILLE DIVISION
OWEN CARL BELL and
BANKRUPTCY TRUSTEE JOHN C.
MCCLEMORE,
Plaintiff,
v.
ED WALLIS III & CO., AND ED
WALLIS, GLASSMAN, WYATT,
TUTTLE, AND COX, P.C.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NO. 3:17-cv-00642
CHIEF JUDGE CRENSHAW

ORDER
Before the Court is Owen Bell’s Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s May 8, 2017 Order
(Doc. No. 19) substituting the Bankruptcy Trustee John C. McClemore as the proper plaintiff in
this matter. (Doc. No. 20.) Pursuant to Local Rule 72.02(b)(1), the Court construes Bell’s
Objection as a Motion to Review. Also before the Court is a Report and Recommendation from
the Magistrate Judge (Doc. No. 22), recommending the Court dismiss this case for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. In response, Bell filed a Motion to Quash Pending Order of Dismissal (Doc.
No. 23), which the Court construes as an Objection to the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation, pursuant to Local Rule 72.03(b)(1). After a de novo review, the Court agrees
that there is no subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Accordingly, the Report and
Recommendation (Doc. No. 22) is ADOPTED IN PART and DECLINED IN PART, and Bell’s
Motion to Review (Doc. No. 20) is DENIED AS MOOT.
The Amended Complaint alleges multiple state law claims against Ed Wallis III & Law
Firm Ed Wallis, Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle, and Cox, P.C. (Doc. No. 6.) It alleges that Plaintiff is a
1

resident of Tennessee (id. at 2), and does not allege the residency of Defendants. Wallis, Glassman,
Wyatt, Tuttle, & Cox, P.C., is incorporated in Tennessee, making it a Tennessee resident. 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1). As such, both Bell and Wallis, Glassman, Wyatt, Tuttle, and Cox, P.C., are residents
of Tennessee, so there is no diversity jurisdiction in this case. 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). There is also
no federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, so the Court does not have jurisdiction over this case.
As the Amended Complaint (Doc. No. 6) superseded the original Complaint (Doc. No. 1),
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. No. 4) is DENIED AS MOOT. However, given the
Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, Bell is on notice that the Court may not have
subject matter jurisdiction, and his 23-page Objections (Doc. No. 23) did not address jurisdiction.
As such, the Court sua sponte finds that it does not have jurisdiction over this case. See
McLaughlin v. Cotner, 193 F.3d 410, 412 (6th Cir. 1999) (affirming that a district court may sua
sponte dismiss a complaint when it clearly lacks jurisdiction).
For the foregoing reasons, the Complaint is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. All
pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT. The Clerk shall enter judgment in accordance with
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58.
IT IS SO ORDERED.

____________________________________
WAVERLY D. CRENSHAW, JR.
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2