Duru v. Texas State Court et al

Filing 57

ORDER: On 6/17/2016, United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered 56 Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge recommending that the court construe Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer (Doc. [55 ]), filed 6/3/2016, as a Rule 60(b) motion and deny the motion. Plaintiff's Motion to Transfer (Doc. 55 ) is denied for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent that the Report recommends that the court consider and deny the Motion on the merits, it is rejected as moot. (Ordered by Judge Sam A Lindsay on 7/14/2016) (bdb)

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
On June 17, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez entered Findings,
Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge (“Report”) recommending
that the court construe Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer (“Motion” or “Motion to Transfer”) (Doc. 55),
filed June 3, 2016, as a Rule 60(b) motion and deny the motion. No objections to the Report were
received as of the date of this order.
The court agrees that Plaintiff’s Motion should be decided under Rule 60(b) of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure because of the time that has passed since entry of the judgment in this case;
however, it is not clear from the Report whether the magistrate judge recommends that Plaintiff’s
Motion should be denied on the merits or for lack of jurisdiction. As noted in the Report, this case
was dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction on February 29, 2016, and
no appeal from the judgment entered by the court was taken by Plaintiff. Plaintiff instead filed her
Motion to Transfer in which she contends, without explanation, that fraud occurred in the dismissal
of this action: “This case was fraudulently and maliciously closed by the court. The U.S. District
Court Clerk maliciously changed the jurisdiction from the original ‘diversity’ to federal question,

Order – Page 1

which led to the dismissal of this case.” Pl.’s Mot. 2. Plaintiff also asserts other grounds that pertain
to the merits of her claims. Because the court previously dismissed this action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction, and Plaintiff’s conclusory assertion that the case was closed as a result of alleged
fraud by the court or clerk is unsubstantiated and fails to address the basis for the court’s prior
determination that it lacks jurisdiction over this action, Plaintiff’s Motion to Transfer (Doc. 55) is
denied for lack of jurisdiction. To the extent that the Report recommends that the court consider
and deny the Motion on the merits, it is rejected as moot.
It is so ordered this 14th day of July, 2016.

_________________________________
Sam A. Lindsay
United States District Judge

Order – Page 2