POTTER v. LINCOLN HERITAGE LIFE INSURANCE COMPANY, 6:15-cv-1250-Orl-41KRS. (2015)
Court: District Court, M.D. Florida
Number: infdco20151019820
Visitors: 20
Filed: Oct. 16, 2015
Latest Update: Oct. 16, 2015
Summary: ORDER CARLOS E. MENDOZA , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 10). United States Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding submitted an Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18), in which she recommends that the Affidavit of Indigency, construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, be denied and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. ( Id. at 7). Plaintiff filed an Amended Memorandum of Law Challenging t
Summary: ORDER CARLOS E. MENDOZA , District Judge . THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 10). United States Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding submitted an Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18), in which she recommends that the Affidavit of Indigency, construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, be denied and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. ( Id. at 7). Plaintiff filed an Amended Memorandum of Law Challenging th..
More
ORDER
CARLOS E. MENDOZA, District Judge.
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 10). United States Magistrate Judge Karla R. Spaulding submitted an Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18), in which she recommends that the Affidavit of Indigency, construed as a motion to proceed in forma pauperis, be denied and Plaintiff's Amended Complaint be dismissed without leave to amend. (Id. at 7). Plaintiff filed an Amended Memorandum of Law Challenging the U.S. Court ("Amended Memorandum," Doc. 20), which this Court construes as an objection to the Report and Recommendation.
After a de novo review,1 the Court agrees entirely with the findings of fact and conclusions of law in the Report and Recommendation. To the extent Plaintiff contends that the Court bears the burden of proving jurisdiction, this is a misstatement of the law. The party seeking subject-matter jurisdiction in federal court bears the burden of pleading the facts necessary to establish such jurisdiction. McCormick v. Aderholt, 293 F.3d 1254, 1257 (11th Cir. 2002) ("[T]he party invoking the court's jurisdiction bears the burden of proving, by a preponderance of the evidence, facts supporting the existence of federal jurisdiction."). Plaintiff has not alleged diversity of citizenship by a preponderance of the evidence, and thus, has not met his burden.
Therefore, it is ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The Amended Report and Recommendation (Doc. 18) is ADOPTED and CONFIRMED and made a part of this Order.
2. Plaintiff's Amended Memorandum of Law Challenging the U.S. Court (Doc. 20) is OVERRULED.
3. Plaintiff's Affidavit of Indigency (Doc. 10) is DENIED without prejudice.
4. The Amended Complaint (Doc. 8) is DISMISSED without prejudice.
5. The Clerk is directed to terminate all other pending motions and close this case.
DONE and ORDERED.
FootNotes
1. The objected-to portions of the Report and Recommendation are reviewed de novo. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(3).
Source: Leagle
