MAYO v. MAYO, 1:17-CV-333-WKW. (2017)
Court: District Court, M.D. Alabama
Number: infdco20170725661
Visitors: 13
Filed: Jul. 24, 2017
Latest Update: Jul. 24, 2017
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS , Chief District Judge . Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 10), to which Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayo has filed objections (Doc. # 11). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b). In her objection, Ms. Mayo argues the merits of her case, claiming that she is entitled to relief. In so doing, she misses the thrust of the
Summary: ORDER W. KEITH WATKINS , Chief District Judge . Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 10), to which Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayo has filed objections (Doc. # 11). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. 636(b). In her objection, Ms. Mayo argues the merits of her case, claiming that she is entitled to relief. In so doing, she misses the thrust of the ..
More
ORDER
W. KEITH WATKINS, Chief District Judge.
Before the court is the Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 10), to which Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayo has filed objections (Doc. # 11). The court has conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the Recommendation to which objection is made. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b).
In her objection, Ms. Mayo argues the merits of her case, claiming that she is entitled to relief. In so doing, she misses the thrust of the Recommendation: that her case is due to be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. Rather, because the state-court action had already been dismissed prior to the attempted removal, the Magistrate Judge properly recommended dismissal without prejudice.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Plaintiff Andrea Eggleston Mayo's objection (Doc. # 11) is OVERRULED;
2. The Recommendation of the Magistrate Judge (Doc. # 10) is ADOPTED; and
3. This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
Source: Leagle
