Dawson v. Gore et al

Filing 16

MEMORANDUM ORDER adopting 11 Report and Recommendation. This action is dismissed w/o prejudice for want of prosecution. Any motions which may be pending are denied. Signed by District Judge Ron Clark on 4/26/18. (tkd, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
TYLER DIVISION
TIMMY DAWSON #681033

§

v.

§

LINDA GORE, ET AL.

§

CIVIL ACTION NO. 6:16cv1158

MEMORANDUM ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
AND ENTERING FINAL JUDGMENT
The Plaintiff Timmy Dawson, a prisoner of the Texas Department of Criminal Justice,
Correctional Institutions Division proceeding pro se, filed this civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C.
§1983 complaining of the deprivation of certain property interests. This Court ordered that the case
be referred to the United States Magistrate Judge pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(1) and (3) and the
Amended Order for the Adoption of Local Rules for the Assignment of Duties to United States
Magistrate Judges. As Defendants, Dawson named Linda Gore, of Dallas, Texas; John Phillips, an
attorney from Dallas, Texas, representing the estate of Henry Dawson Jr.; the Dallas law firm of
Boone, Boone, and Phillips, in which John Phillips was a partner; Walter Joe Klutts of Okemah,
Oklahoma, the caretaker of real property owned by Henry Dawson Jr.; and the Walter Joe Klutts
Trust.
Dawson contends that the named Defendants committed the state law tort of tortious
interference with inheritance. Although he cited diversity of citizenship as a basis for federal court
jurisdiction, his pleadings show that he, Gore, and Phillips are all citizens of the State of Texas,
showing that complete diversity between the parties does not exist. See Caterpillar Inc. v. Lewis,
519 U.S. 61, 68, 117 S.Ct. 467, 136 L.Ed.2d 437 (1996) (diversity jurisdiction requires complete
diversity, meaning all persons on one side of the controversy must be citizens of different states from
all persons on the other side).
1

After review of the pleadings, the Magistrate Judge issued a Report recommending that the
lawsuit be dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction. Dawson received a copy of the Report
but has filed no objections; instead, he filed objections to the Court’s order directing payment of the
filing fee in installments through deductions from Dawson’s inmate trust account. This order was
authorized by 28 U.S.C. §1915(b)(1) and Dawson shows no valid basis for objecting to it.
Because Dawson did not file objections to the Magistrate Judge’s Report, he is barred from
de novo review by the District Judge of those findings, conclusions, and recommendations and,
except upon grounds of plain error, from appellate review of the unobjected-to factual findings and
legal conclusions accepted and adopted by the District Court. Douglass v. United Services
Automobile Association, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc).
The Court has reviewed the pleadings in this cause and the Report of the Magistrate Judge.
Upon such review, the Court has determined that the Report of the Magistrate Judge is correct. See
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th Cir.), cert. denied, 492 U.S. 918, 109 S.Ct. 3243
(1989) (where no objections to a Magistrate Judge’s Report are filed, the standard of review is
“clearly erroneous, abuse of discretion and contrary to law.”) It is accordingly
ORDERED that the Report of the Magistrate Judge (docket no. 11) is ADOPTED as the
opinion of the District Court. It is further
ORDERED that the above-styled civil action is DISMISSED for want of jurisdiction. This
dismissal is without prejudice to the Plaintiff’s right to litigate his claims in a court of proper
jurisdiction. It is further
ORDERED that any and all motions which may be pending in this civil action are hereby
DENIED.

So Ordered and Signed
Apr 26, 2018

2