NOT FOR PUBLICATION

ORDER

MADELINE COX ARLEO, District Judge.

THIS MATTER having come before the Court on Plaintiff Calvin R. Brooks' ("Plaintiff") Motion for Default Judgment against Defendants PF Holdings, LLC, Jawana Johnson, Lisa Rawligens and Hallmark Investments, LLC (together, "Defendants"), and Defendants' Cross Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim under Fed. R. Civ. P. Rule 12(b)(6)1 and Opposition to Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 1, 14;

and it appearing that Plaintiff's Amended Complaint is subject to screening under 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which directs district courts to review complaints and to dismiss sua sponte any action that: "(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)(B);

and it appearing the Plaintiff's Complaint asserts three causes of action: (1) "invasion of privacy," (2) "loss of personal property," and (3) "emotional distress";

and it appearing that, in New Jersey, an "injury to the person" is governed by a two year statute of limitations, see N.J.S.A. 2A:14-2 ("Every action at law for an injury to the person caused by the wrongful act, neglect, or default of any person within this State shall be commenced within two years after the cause of any such action shall have accrued.");

and it appearing that invasion of privacy and emotional distress are governed by this two year statute of limitations, see Rumbauskas v. Cantor, 138 N.J. 173, 182 (1994) (finding that an invasion of privacy by intrusion action is governed by the two year statute of limitations); Campanello v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, 590 F.Supp.2d 694 (D.N.J. 2008) (finding that the statute of limitations for both intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress is two years);

and it appearing that the event giving rise to Plaintiff's claims occurred on the morning of January 29, 2014 and February 18, 2014, see ECF No. 1, p. 3;

and it appearing that Plaintiff did not file his Complaint until April 17, 2017, more than two years after the events giving rise to the claims contained therein;

and it appearing that, first, there is no independent tort for "loss of property" and, second, that the Complaint lacks any factual allegations regarding Plaintiff's alleged loss;

and for good cause shown;

IT IS on this 28th day of March, 2018,

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Complaint, ECF No. 1, is administratively DISMISSED with prejudice as to the claims for invasion of privacy and emotional distress and without prejudice as to the claim for "loss of property2";

ORDERED that Plaintiff's Motion for Default Judgment, ECF No. 19, and Defendants' Cross-Motion to Dismiss, ECF No. 24, are DISMISSED as moot.