OPINION AND ORDER

SUSAN COLLINS, Magistrate Judge.

Before the Court is a complaint filed by Plaintiff Darren Findling, personal representative of the estate of decedent Curtis L. Collyer, alleging that the Court has diversity jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. (DE 1). In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges: "At the time of his passing, decedent, Curtis Collyer, resided in the City of Coldwater, County of Branch, State of Michigan. Consequently, Mr. Collyer was a citizen of Michigan." (DE 1 ¶ 3).

Plaintiff's jurisdictional allegations are inadequate with respect to decedent Plaintiff Collyer. Residency is meaningless for purposes of diversity jurisdiction; an individual's citizenship is determined by his or her domicile. Dakuras v. Edwards, 312 F.3d 256, 258 (7th Cir. 2002); see Heinen v. Northrop Grumman Corp., 671 F.3d 669, 670 (7th Cir. 2012) ("[R]esidence may or may not demonstrate citizenship, which depends on domicile-that is to say, the state in which a person intends to live over the long run."); Guar. Nat'l Title Co. v. J.E.G. Assocs., 101 F.3d 57, 58-59 (7th Cir. 1996) (explaining that statements concerning a party's "residency" are not proper allegations of citizenship as required by 28 U.S.C. § 1332). Therefore, Plaintiff must advise the Court of the domicile of decedent Plaintiff Collyer at the time of his death, which demonstrates citizenship.1 Plaintiff is AFFORDED to and including January 29, 2019, to file a supplemental jurisdictional statement that properly alleges the citizenship of the parties.

SO ORDERED.