United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
SG MILLER STATION-ATLANTA, LLC a/a/f MILLER STATION ON PEACHTREE APTS., Plaintiff,
GEORGE BOLDEN, and All Others, Defendants.
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUTFEY, JR., UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Russell G.
Vineyard's Final Report and Recommendation
(“R&R”) , which recommends remanding this
dispossessory action to the Magistrate Court of DeKalb
September 15, 2016, Plaintiff Miller Station-Atlanta, LLC
a/a/f Miller Station on Peachtree Apts.
(“Plaintiff”) initiated a dispossessory
proceeding against its tenant, Defendant George Bolden
(“Defendant”) in the Magistrate Court of DeKalb
County, Georgia. The Complaint seeks possession of premises
currently occupied by Defendant and seeks past due rent, fees
October 24, 2016, Defendant, proceeding pro se,
removed the DeKalb County action to this Court by filing his
Notice of Removal and an application to proceed in forma
pauperis (“IFP”) . Defendant appears to
assert that there is federal subject matter jurisdiction
because there is in this case a question of federal law.
October 28, 2016, Magistrate Judge Vineyard granted
Defendant's application to proceed IFP. The Magistrate
Judge then considered, sua sponte, whether there is
federal subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that
federal subject matter jurisdiction was not present and
recommended that the Court remand the case to the Magistrate
Court of DeKalb County. The Magistrate Judge found that the
Complaint filed in DeKalb County asserts a state court
dispossessory action and does not allege federal law claims.
Because a federal law defense or counterclaim does not confer
federal jurisdiction, the Magistrate Judge concluded that the
Court does not have federal question jurisdiction over this
matter. The Magistrate Judge also found that Defendant failed
to allege any facts to show that the parties' citizenship
is completely diverse, or that the amount in controversy
exceeds $75, 000. The Magistrate Judge concluded that the
Court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this matter
and recommended that this case be remanded to the state
November 10, 2016, in lieu of objecting to the R&R,
Defendant filed his Petition for Extension of Time to File
Objections . Defendant “ask[s] the Court for more
time to file an answer and or respond to the remand
petition.” (See  at 1). Defendant claims he
needs additional time “so that [he] can do research and
write up.” (Id.).
November 23, 2016, Plaintiff filed its Motion in Opposition
to Defendant's Petition for Extension of Time to File
Objections. Plaintiff argues that “[a]n extension of
time would extremely prejudice the Plaintiff and deprive them
of their right to obtain their property back.”
Plaintiff argues further that “Defendant has failed to
state a legal basis for which his request for an extension of
time to file objections should be granted.”
(See  at 3).
conducting a careful and complete review of the findings and
recommendations, a district judge may accept, reject or
modify a magistrate judge's report and recommendation. 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Williams v.
Wainwright, 681 F.2d 732, 732 (11th Cir. 1982),
cert. denied, 459 U.S. 1112 (1983). A district judge
“shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings or
recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C.
§ 636(b)(1). With respect to those findings and
recommendations to which objections have not been asserted,
the Court must conduct a plain error review of the record.
United States v. Slay, 714 F.2d 1093, 1095 (11th
than four months after the R&R gave Defendant notice that
the parties may file written objections to the R&R within
fourteen (14) days of service, and Defendant still has not
filed Objections. The time period for filing Objections has
expired, and Defendant otherwise fails to show good cause for
Petition for Extension of Time to File Objections  is
denied. The Court, in its discretion, nevertheless ...