ORDER (1) ADOPTING RECOMMENDED DISPOSITION OF REPORT & RECOMMENDATION (ECF #17), (2) DISMISSING COMPLAINT WITHOUT PREJUDICE DUE TO A LACK OF SUBJECT-MATTER JURSIDICTION, AND (3) TERMINATING DEFENADNT'S MOTION TO DISMISS (ECF #12) AS MOOT

MATTHEW F. LEITMAN, District Judge.

In this action, pro se Plaintiff Wilfred D. Hart alleges that Defendant Bee Property Management, Inc. committed real estate fraud and violated certain usury laws. (See Compl., ECF #1.) On August 15, 2018, Bee Property moved to dismiss Hart's Complaint pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). (See Mot., ECF #12.)

On February 12, 2019, the assigned Magistrate Judge issued a Report and Recommendation in which she recommended that the Court dismiss Hart's Complaint because he had failed to establish that this Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action (the "R&R"). (See R&R, ECF #17.) At the conclusion of the R&R, the Magistrate Judge informed the parties that if they wanted to seek review of her recommendation, they needed to file specific objections with the Court within fourteen days. (See id. at Pg. ID 89-90.) The Court mailed a copy of the R&R to Hart at the mailing address he provided the Court on February 12, 2019. (See Dkt.)

"Federal courts have limited jurisdiction, and [] can only exercise the powers vested in [them] by the Constitution and statute." Heartwood, Inc. v. Agpaoa, 628 F.3d 261, 266 (6th Cir. 2010). Federal courts also "have an independent obligation to investigate and police the boundaries of [their] own jurisdiction." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). This duty "requires" a federal court to raise jurisdiction issues "when [it] see[s] them." Id. "The plaintiff has the burden of proving that the federal court has subject-matter jurisdiction." Chevalier v. Estate of Barnhart, 803 F.3d 789, 794 (6th Cir. 2015).

Hart has not filed any objections to the R&R. The failure to object to an R&R releases the Court from its duty to independently review the matter. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149 (1985). In addition, the failure to file objections to an R&R waives any further right to appeal. See Howard v. Sec'y of Health and Human Servs., 932 F.2d 505 (6th Cir. 1991); Smith v. Detroit Fed'n of Teachers Local 231, 829 F.2d 1370, 1373 (6th Cir. 1987).

Accordingly, because Hart has failed to file any objections to the R&R, and because he has failed to establish this Court's subject-matter jurisdiction, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Magistrate Judge's recommendation to dismiss his Complaint without prejudice is ADOPTED.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that (1) Hart's Complaint (ECF #1) is DISMSISED WITHOUT PREJUDICE due to a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction and (2) Bee Property's motion to dismiss (ECF #12) is TERMINATED AS MOOT.