Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Eason v. Citimortgage, Inc.

United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division

March 1, 2017

TRELLIS EASON, et al., Plaintiffs,
v.
CITIMORTGAGE, INC., Defendant.

          OPINION AND ORDER

          WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

         This matter is before the Court on Plaintiff Trellis Eason's (“Plaintiff” or “Eason”)[1] Notice of Appeal [5], [2] which the Court treats as an Objection to the Magistrate Judge's December 8, 2016, Order (“Objection”).[3]

         I. BACKGROUND

         On November 15, 2016, Plaintiff Eason, pro se, filed an application to proceed in forma pauperis [1] (“IFP Application”). Eason attached to his IFP Application his Complaint [1.1] titled “Complaint Improper Foreclosure with Injunctive Relief with a Federal Stay of Eviction Pursuant to 28 USCA 1446(D).”

         On November 17, 2016, Magistrate Judge Janet F. King issued an order on her review of the Complaint. (“November 17th Order” [2]). The Magistrate Judge found that Plaintiff's Complaint did not establish the Court's subject matter jurisdiction or properly state a claim for relief. (Id. at 7). The Magistrate Judge ordered:

Plaintiff Eason and - if she properly executes the amended pleading -Plaintiff Davis are ordered within twenty-one days, using case number 1:16-cv-4247, to either (1), pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1441 and 1446, file a notice of removal along with all of the processes, paperwork and other filings from the dispossessory proceeding in the Magistrate Court of Douglas County, or (2) file an amended complaint which complies with Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 10 by setting forth in separately numbered paragraphs the factual basis for Plaintiffs' claims for relief and by stating in separately enumerated counts each cause of action, supported by the factual allegations, asserted against Defendant.

(Id. at 9).

         On December 7, 2016, Eason filed his “Emergency Motion for Entry to Reconsider Order to Remand Case Back to State Court, Motion to Vacate Remand Order with Supplemental Jurisdiction and Stay of All Related State Court Claims Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.A. 1332” [3] (“Emergency Motion”). In it, Plaintiff Eason asked the Court to reconsider and vacate the Magistrate Judge's November 17th Order.

         On December 8, 2016, the Magistrate Judge denied Plaintiff's Emergency Motion. (“December 8th Order” [4]). The Magistrate Judge concluded that (i) the November 17th Order did not remand this case to state court and (2) Plaintiff presented no new evidence for the Magistrate Judge to reconsider her previous order. (Id.).

         On December 15, 2016, Plaintiff filed his Objection to the Magistrate Judge's December 8th Order. Plaintiff provides no basis for, or argument in support of, the Objection.

         II. DISCUSSION

         A. Legal Standard

         Under 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A), a magistrate judge has the authority to hear and determine any nondispositive pretrial matter, and “the court may reconsider any pretrial matter [within the jurisdiction of the magistrate judge] where it has been shown that the magistrate judge's order is clearly erroneous or contrary to law.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A); see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(a) (district judge “must consider timely objections and modify or set aside any part of the [magistrate judge's] order [on a nondispositive pretrial matter] that is clearly erroneous or is contrary to law”).

         Section 636(b)(1)(A) excludes from a magistrate judge's authority “a motion for injunctive relief, for judgment on the pleadings, for summary judgment . . . to dismiss for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, and to involuntarily dismiss an action.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(A). For these dispositive motions, a magistrate judge may issue propose findings and recommendations, which the court may accept, reject, or modify. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B). A district judge “shall made a de novo ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.