Filed: Jun. 04, 2013
Latest Update: Jun. 04, 2013
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge. On May 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 49) that Mr. Plaintiff Mark Geraghty Wonders's Second Amended Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Wonders filed an objection (Doc. # 50) and included in that objection a motion to amend his complaint. Defendants filed a response in opposition to Mr. Wonders's filing. (Doc. # 51.) Having independently reviewed the file in this case and conducted a
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge. On May 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 49) that Mr. Plaintiff Mark Geraghty Wonders's Second Amended Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Wonders filed an objection (Doc. # 50) and included in that objection a motion to amend his complaint. Defendants filed a response in opposition to Mr. Wonders's filing. (Doc. # 51.) Having independently reviewed the file in this case and conducted a ..
More
ORDER
W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge.
On May 13, 2013, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 49) that Mr. Plaintiff Mark Geraghty Wonders's Second Amended Complaint be dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Mr. Wonders filed an objection (Doc. # 50) and included in that objection a motion to amend his complaint. Defendants filed a response in opposition to Mr. Wonders's filing. (Doc. # 51.)
Having independently reviewed the file in this case and conducted a de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), the court finds that the objection lacks merit for the reasons set forth in the Recommendation and that subject matter jurisdiction is lacking. The court adds that even if a basis for supplemental jurisdiction existed, the court would decline to exercise such jurisdiction in this case. See 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3). Furthermore, the court finds that Mr. Wonders's motion to amend the second amended complaint is due to be denied on grounds of futility.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED that
(1) Mr. Wonders' objection (Doc. # 50) is OVERRULED;
(2) the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 49) is ADOPTED;
(3) Defendants' motion to dismiss (Doc. # 42) is GRANTED;
(4) Mr. Wonders's motion to amend the second amended complaint (Doc. # 50) is DENIED; and
(5) this action is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
