Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Rahab v. Freeman

United States District Court, D. Kansas

June 2, 2015

OTHMAN A. RAHAB aka OTHEL GRAY, JR., Plaintiff,
v.
JESSICA FREEMAN and AMERICAN CAB CO., Defendants.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

MONTI L. BELOT, District Judge.

This case comes before the court on the following:

1) Magistrate Judge Karen Humphreys' report and recommendation (Doc. 17) recommending dismissal pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2);

2) Plaintiff's objection (Doc. 21).

I. Standards

The standards this court must employ upon review of plaintiff's objection to the Recommendation and Report are clear. See generally 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72. First, only those portions of the Recommendation and Report plaintiff specifically identified as objectionable will be reviewed. See Gettings v. McKune, 88 F.Supp.2d 1205, 1211 (D. Kan. 2000). Second, review of the identified portions is de novo. Thus, the Recommendation and Report is given no presumptive weight. See Griego v. Padilla, 64 F.3d 580, 583-84 (10th Cir. 1995).

II. Analysis

Plaintiff filed this action against defendants alleging he suffered damages from a car accident which occurred in Andover, Kansas. Plaintiff and both defendants are alleged to be Kansas residents.

The magistrate held that plaintiff's claims did not invoke this court's jurisdiction and, therefore, recommended dismissal. In his objection, plaintiff makes no attempt at establishing a basis for this court's jurisdiction. Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. In an action which does not involve a federal question, such as this one, both parties must be citizens of different states. 28 U.S.C. § 1332. All parties in this case are Kansas citizens. Therefore, this court does not have subject matter jurisdiction over this action and it must be dismissed. Laughlin v. KMART Corp., 50 F.3d 871, 873 (10th Cir. 1995).

III. Conclusion

Plaintiff's objection to Magistrate Judge Humphreys' Order is OVERRULED (Doc. 21) and the court adopts the report and recommendation in its entirety. (Doc. 17). This action is dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3).

IT IS SO ORDERED.


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Official citation and/or docket number and footnotes (if any) for this case available with purchase.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.