United States District Court, W.D. Tennessee, Western Division
ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION FOR DISMISSAL AND DENYING MOTION TO AMEND
T. Fowlkes, Jr. United States District Judge
the Court is the Report and Recommendation entered by the
Magistrate Judge in the above-styled case. (ECF No. 11.) On
April 14, 2017, Plaintiffs filed their pro se
Complaint, accompanied by their Motions seeking leave to
proceed in forma pauperis
(“IFP”). (ECF Nos.1, 2, & 3.)
Pursuant to Administrative Order 2013-15, this case was
assigned to the Magistrate Judge for management of all
pretrial matters. On November 22, 2017, the Magistrate Judge
entered an Order granting both IFP Motions. (ECF No.
10.) The Magistrate Judge subsequently issued a Report and
Recommendation on December 13, 2017, suggesting that this
Court dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint in its entirety for
lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 11,
6.)Plaintiff did not file any Objections to the Report and
Recommendation, and the deadline for doing so has passed.
Plaintiffs did file an Amended Complaint on December 28,
2017. (ECF No. 12.)
FINDINGS OF FACT
in his Report and Recommendation, is the Magistrate
Judge's determination that proposed findings of fact are
not necessary in this case. Compare Fed. R. Civ. P.
72(b)(1), with ECF No. 11. Rather, the Magistrate
Judge issued his Report and Recommendation based on
Plaintiffs' Complaint and the applicable law. The Court,
for purposes of its analysis, similarly incorporates the same
as well as Plaintiffs' Amended Complaint.
to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), magistrate judges may hear and
determine any pretrial matter pending before the Court,
except various dispositive motions. 28 U.S.C. §
636(b)(1)(A). Upon hearing a pending matter, “the
magistrate judge must enter a recommended disposition,
including, if appropriate, proposed findings of fact.”
Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(1); see also Baker v. Peterson,
67 Fed.Appx. 308, 310 (6th Cir. 2003). The district court may
accept, reject, or modify the proposed findings or
recommendations of the Magistrate Judge. 28 U.S.C. §
party who disagrees with a magistrate's proposed findings
and recommendation may file written objections to the report
and recommendation. Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(2). The standard of
review that is applied by the district court depends on the
nature of the matter considered by the magistrate judge.
See Baker, 67 Fed.Appx. at 310. The district court
is not required to review-under a de novo or any
other standard-those aspects of the report and recommendation
to which no objection is made. Thomas v. Arn, 474
U.S. 140, 150 (1985). A district judge should adopt the
findings and rulings of the magistrate judge to which no
specific objection is filed. Brown, 47 F.Supp.3d at
to Local Rule 4.1, service will not issue in a pro
se case where the pro se plaintiff has been
granted leave to proceed IFP until the complaint has
been screened under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). LR
4.1(b). Courts must screen IFP complaints and
dismiss any complaint, or portion thereof, if the allegation
of poverty is untrue or if the action (i) is frivolous or
malicious, (ii) fails to state a claim on which relief may be
granted, or (iii) seeks monetary relief against a defendant
who is immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2).
To state a claim, courts hold as follows:
[A] complaint must contain a short and plain statement of the
claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief. A
complaint must have enough facts to state a claim to relief
that is plausible on its face. A claim has facial
plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that
allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the
defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.
Davidson v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons, No. 17-5429,
2017 U.S. App. LEXIS 24272, at *6 (6th Cir.Nov. 29, 2017).
Courts must remain conscious that pro se pleadings,
though not free from basic pleading requirements, are
“held ‘to less stringent standards than formal
pleadings drafted by lawyers, ' and should therefore be
liberally construed.” Williams v. Curtin, 631
F.3d 380, 383(6th Cir. 2011) (quoting Martin v.
Overton, 391 F.3d 710, 712 (6th Cir. 2004)).
de novo review of the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, this Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge's recommendation to dismiss Plaintiff's
original Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A
federal district court has original jurisdiction of all civil
actions “arising under the Constitution, laws, or
treaties of the United States”, i.e., federal-question
jurisdiction, or “where the matter in controversy
exceeds the sum or value of $75, 000, exclusive of interest
and costs, and is between . . . citizens of different
states”, i.e., diversity jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C.
Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge's determination
that Plaintiffs' original Complaint should be dismissed
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. As noted by the
Magistrate Judge, Plaintiffs' original Complaint does not
present a federal question. (ECF No. 11, 5.) Whether a claim
presents a federal question is determined by looking to what
appears in the plaintiff's statement of his own claim.
Taylor v. Anderson, 234 U.S. 74, 75-76 (1914). Here,
Plaintiffs' Complaint does not cite the Constitution,
laws, or treaties of the United States but, rather, generally
cites the ...