Dove v. Dove
ORDER ADOPTING Magistrate's 4 Report and Recommendations. IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff Angelica Dove's Original Petition for Divorce is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of jurisdiction. Signed by Judge Sam Sparks. (klw)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS U14 DEC -5 PM
Case No. A-14-CA-954-SS
LEE MORRIS DOVE,
BE IT REMEMBERED on this day the Court reviewed the file in the above-styled cause, and
specifically Plaintiff Angelica Dove's Original Petition for Divorce [#1] and the Report and
Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin [#4]. Neither party filed
objections to the Report and Recommendation. Having reviewed the documents, the governing law,
and the file as a whole, the Court enters the following opinion and orders.
All matters in this case were referred to United States Magistrate Judge Andrew W. Austin
for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
636(b) and Rule
of Appendix C of the
Local Court Rules of the United States District Court for the Western District of Texas, Local Rules
for the Assignment ofDuties to United States Magistrate Judges. Dove is entitled to de novo review
of the portions of the Magistrate Judge's report to which she filed specific objections. 28 U.S.C.
636(b)(1). All other review is for plain error.
F.3d 612, 617 (5th Cir.
2008). Nevertheless, this Court has reviewed the entire file de novo, and agrees with the Magistrate
Dove, proceeding pro Se, asks this Court to grant her a divorce from her husband, using state
court forms apparently downloaded from the internet. Despite noting significant oddities in Dove's
filing suggesting Dove may not have been the person who filed this action at all, see Report & Rec.
[#4] at 2 n, 1, the Court has permitted Dove to proceed informa pauperis.
This Court shall dismiss a case brought informapauperis if the Court determines the action
(1) is frivolous or malicious; (2) fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted; or (3) seeks
monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief 28 U.S.C.
district court may dismiss under
1915 for failure to state a claim if it is 'patently obvious' that the
plaintiff could not prevail on the facts alleged, and allowing him an opportunity to amend his
complaint would be futile." Trujillo v. Williams, 465 F.3d 1210, 1224 (10th Cir. 2006). Such a
dismissal may occur at anytime, before or after service ofprocess and before or after the defendant's
McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116, 1119 (5th Cir. 1986).
This Court must also determine whether it has subject-matter jurisdiction.
2(h)(e). Unless otherwise provided by statute, federal district courts have jurisdiction over
(1) federal questions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States and (2) civil
actions between citizens of different states or foreign nations where the amount in controversy
exceeds $75,000. 28 U.S.C.
The Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's conclusion Dove's divorce action must be
dismissed, as this Court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction to entertain it. Neither federal question
jurisdiction nor diversity jurisdiction obtains, as divorce is a state law cause of action, see, e.g.,
Milligan v. Milligan,
484 F.2d 446,447(8th Cir. 1973) ("[D]ivorce actions do not engender a federal
question[.]"), and both Mr. and Mrs. Dove are citizens of Texas,
Orig. Pet. Divorce [#1] at 2.
As there is no basis for this Court to assert jurisdiction, dismissal is warranted.
IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the United States
Magistrate Judge [#4] is ACCEPTED; and
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that Plaintiff Angelica Dove's Original Petition for
Divorce is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for want of jurisdiction.
SIGNED this the
day of December 2014.
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?