ORDER AFFIRMING RECOMMENDED DECISION OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

D. BROCK HORNBY, District Judge.

On May 4, 2017, the United States Magistrate Judge filed with the court, with copies to the parties, his Recommended Decision on Claim Against Defendant Bjorn Lange (ECF No. 158). The plaintiff filed objections to the Recommended Decision on May 18 and 19, 2017 (ECF No. 159, 160). I have reviewed and considered the Recommended Decision, together with the entire record; I have made a de novo determination of all matters adjudicated by the Recommended Decision; and I concur with one of the recommendations of the United States Magistrate Judge for the reasons set forth in the Recommended Decision, modify another as described below, and determine that no further proceeding is necessary.

The Magistrate Judge first recommended dismissal of all federal claims against this defendant, a federal defender who was the plaintiff's first defense counsel on federal criminal charges. I agree with that recommendation completely, for the reasons the Magistrate Judge gave.

Next, the Magistrate Judge considered whether diversity of citizenship would support continuing federal jurisdiction over the state law claims. (This appears to be the first time anyone has suggested that diversity of citizenship might be a basis for federal jurisdiction in this case.) The Magistrate Judge concluded that the plaintiff did not satisfy the required jurisdictional amount of damages (over $75,000) to support diversity jurisdiction, 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a), and recommended that the state claims be dismissed outright. The plaintiff objected, stating:

Pl.'s Opp'n to Report & Recommendation 4-5 (ECF No. 160).

The burden to support jurisdiction lies with the party asserting it, see Massachusetts School of Law at Andover, Inc. v. American Bar Association, 142 F.3d 26, 33 (1st Cir. 1998), here the plaintiff. This plaintiff did not initially seek federal jurisdiction, but originally filed his lawsuit in state court and, in doing so, nowhere did he allege the citizenship of any of the parties, including himself (he did allege the defendants' addresses in New Hampshire, Compl. ¶¶ 1-7 (ECF No. 1-1), which turn out to be work addresses for all but perhaps two, Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 1-7 (ECF No. 58-1)).2 He also mentioned no amount of damages, but referred to "severe emotional distress, anxiety, mental injury due to the actions of the defendants. Further, plaintiff lost his property." Compl. ¶ 15 (ECF No. 1-1). The only reference to property in the removed complaint was the assertion that certain defendants (not this one) "conducted an illegal, warrantless search and seizure" at a house in New Durham, New Hampshire "where the plaintiff had stored some of his property" and that a computer was seized.3 Compl. ¶ 10 (ECF No. 1-1). The only assertion against this defendant in that complaint was that he had viewed the contents of the computer without authorization. Id. ¶ 11. Other defendants removed the lawsuit to this federal court (this defendant did not expressly join the removal), but the basis for the removal was federal question jurisdiction, not diversity. See Notice of Removal ¶¶ 1-3 (ECF No. 1). Thus, the removal petition likewise does not contain the necessary information to establish diversity jurisdiction. Indeed, were it not for federal question jurisdiction, this lawsuit probably would not have been removable based upon diversity of citizenship, because it seems likely that at least some of the defendants are citizens of New Hampshire,4 see 28 U.S.C. § 1441(b)(2) (prohibiting removal based solely on diversity of citizenship if a defendant is a citizen of the state in which the state court lawsuit was filed). Now the plaintiff apparently wants to stay in federal court.5 First Circuit cases make clear, however, that once the court questions the jurisdictional amount, "the party seeking to invoke jurisdiction has the burden of alleging with sufficient particularity facts indicating that it is not a legal certainty that the claim involves less than the jurisdictional amount," Spielman v. Genzyme Corp., 251 F.3d 1, 5 (1st Cir. 2001) (quoting Dep't of Recreation & Sports of Puerto Rico v. World Boxing Ass'n, 942 F.2d 84, 88 (1st Cir. 1991)), and that "we expect something more than bald statements and round numbers." Abdel-Aleem v. OPK Biotech LLC, 665 F.3d 38, 43 (1st Cir. 2012). But that is all the plaintiff offers here, as revealed in my quotation above from his objection. His statements there are insufficient to sustain diversity jurisdiction on this record.

Since diversity jurisdiction does not exist, only supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367 would permit the lawsuit to continue on the state claims in this federal court. But this court has discretion to dismiss the state claims once all the federal claims are dismissed. Id. § 1367(c)(3). I conclude that the proper remedy in this case is remand of the state claims to state court where the plaintiff first filed this lawsuit and from which it was removed, i.e., Strafford County Superior Court, State of New Hampshire.6 See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c).

It is therefore ORDERED that the Recommended Decision of the Magistrate Judge is hereby ADOPTED IN PART and MODIFIED IN PART as follows:

1. The plaintiff's federal claims against the defendant Lange are DISMISSED.

2. The plaintiff's state claims against the defendant Lange are REMANDED to the New Hampshire Superior Court for Strafford County.

SO ORDERED.