Duru v. Texas State Court et al

Filing 53

Order Accepting 50 Findings and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the court overrules HCA Inc.'s and Baker Donelson's objections. Rather than ruling on the various individual motions, some of which were brought under Rule 12(b)(1), the court sua sponte dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directs the clerk of the court to term all pending motions. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 2/29/2016) (axm)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
DALLAS DIVISION
ROSE ADANMA DURU,
Plaintiff,
v.
TEXAS STATE COURT, et al.,
Defendants.

§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§
§

Civil Action No. 3:15-CV-1855-L

ORDER
This case, which was filed by pro se Plaintiff Rose Adanma Duru (“Plaintiff”) on May 28,
2015, was referred to United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez for pretrial management
on May 29, 2015. On February 11, 2016, the magistrate judge entered Findings, Conclusions, and
Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) recommending, with respect to
the pending motions to dismiss filed by Defendants in this case under Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure 12(b)(1), (2), and (6) (Docs. 14, 15, 18, 23, 26, 28, 40, 46), that the court grant the
motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(1), deny as moot all other motions by Defendants, and dismiss
without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
Plaintiff did not respond to any of the motions or object to the Report. On January 25, 2016,
Defendants HCA Inc. and Baker Donelson filed objections in which they state that they do not object
to the magistrate judge’s determination that the case should be dismissed, but they object to the
magistrate judge’s recommendation that the case should be dismissed without prejudice without
ruling on the merits of Plaintiff’s claims and the related issues raised in their motions to dismiss.

Order – Page 1

Having reviewed the pleadings, file, objections, record in this case, and Report, and having
conducting a de novo review of that portion of the Report to which objection was made, the court
determines that the findings and conclusions of the magistrate judge are correct, and accepts them
as those of the court. The court agrees with the magistrate judge’s determination that Plaintiff has
not pleaded sufficient allegations to establish diversity or federal question jurisdiction.
Having determined that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking, dismissal without prejudice is
appropriate, and the court cannot consider the merits of Plaintiff’s claims or the related arguments
in the motions filed by HCA Inc., Baker Donelson, or any other Defendant, as it lacks jurisdiction
to do so. See Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83, 94 (1998) (“Without jurisdiction
the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”); see also Ramming v. United States, 281 F.3d 158, 161
(5th Cir. 2001) (“When a Rule 12(b)(1) motion is filed in conjunction with other Rule 12 motions,
the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) jurisdictional attack before addressing any attack on the
merits. This requirement prevents a court without jurisdiction from prematurely dismissing a case
with prejudice. The court’s dismissal of a plaintiff’s case because the plaintiff lacks subject matter
jurisdiction is not a determination on the merits and does not prevent the plaintiff from pursuing a
claim in a court that does have proper jurisdiction.”) (citations omitted). Accordingly, the court
overrules HCA Inc.’s and Baker Donelson’s objections. Rather than ruling on the various
individual motions, some of which were brought under Rule 12(b)(1), the court sua sponte
dismisses without prejudice this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and directs the clerk
of the court to term all pending motions.

Order – Page 2

It is so ordered this 29th day of February, 2016.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 3