ORDER

W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge.

On May 26, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 18) to which Defendant Trustmark National Bank timely filed objections (Doc. # 19). After de novo consideration of those portions of the Recommendation to which Trustmark objected, and in light of the record, the applicable law, and the arguments, the court finds that Trustmark's objections are due to be overruled and the Recommendation is due to be adopted.

Trustmark objects to the Recommendation on two bases: (1) the court should exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Trustmark's counterclaim for a state-law eviction claim because the court has already decided the issues which are dispositive of Trustmark's counterclaim and because the correct disposition of the counterclaim is clear as a matter of state law; and (2) the court has original jurisdiction over the counterclaim based upon diversity.

Trustmark concedes that the court is vested with discretion to decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction for the reasons stated in the Recommendation. (Doc. # 19, at 4.) However, it urges the court to retain supplemental jurisdiction because it asserts that the court has already decided issues that are dispositive of the counterclaim and because the correct disposition of the pending counterclaim is clear as a matter of state law.

Contrary to Trustmark's assertion, the court has not attempted to determine Plaintiff's rights with respect to possession of the property as a tenant or lease-to-own tenant. When the Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal of Plaintiff's complaint, it was because the factual allegations in the complaint did not support Plaintiff's claims.1 The court has not considered whether Plaintiff has recourse under state landlord/tenant law to remain in possession of the home. By exercising supplemental jurisdiction here, the court would be engaging in a state law eviction action, a matter that is better suited for a state court. This objection is without merit.

Trustmark's second objection is that the court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 and that it has met the amount in controversy requirement. For this objection, Trustmark makes essentially the same arguments that the Magistrate Judge considered and rejected.2 Defendant has failed to establish the requisite amount in controversy, and this objection is without merit.

Accordingly, it is ORDERED that:

(1) Trustmark's Objections (Doc. # 19) are OVERRULED;

(2) The Recommendation (Doc. # 18) is ADOPTED;

(3) Trustmark's counterclaim (Doc. # 2) is DISMISSED; and

(4) Trustmark's Motion for Summary Judgment (Docs. # 13) is DENIED as moot.

A separate final judgment will be entered.