United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUTFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Walter E.
Johnson's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“R&R”), which recommends remanding this
dispossessory action to the Magistrate Court of Newton
31, 2017, Plaintiff Geraldine Hopson
(“Plaintiff”) initiated a dispossessory
proceeding against Calvin Green and Lekeisha Clemons
(“Defendants”) in the Magistrate Court of Newton
County, Georgia. The Complaint seeks possession of premises
currently occupied by Defendants and seeks past due rent,
fees and costs.
August 16, 2017, Defendants, proceeding pro se,
removed the Newton County Action to this Court by filing a
Petition for Removal and an application to proceed in
forma pauperis (“IFP Application”).
Defendants appear to assert that there is federal subject
matter jurisdiction because there is a question of federal
law in this action. In their Petition for Removal, Defendants
claim that Plaintiff violated “15 USC 1692 [sic]”
and Rule 60 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure,
“having a legal duty to abort eviction pursuant to
95.11, ” and violated the Due Process
“Clauses” of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Pet. for
Removal  at 2-3).
August 18, 2017, Magistrate Judge Johnson granted
Defendants' IFP Application. (). The Magistrate
Judge then considered, sua sponte, whether there is
federal subject matter jurisdiction over the action removed.
The Magistrate Judge found that federal subject matter
jurisdiction was not present and recommended that the Court
remand the case to the Magistrate Court of Newton County. The
Magistrate Judge found that the Complaint filed in Magistrate
Court asserts a state court dispossessory action and does not
allege federal law claims. The Magistrate Judge also
considered whether the Court has subject-matter jurisdiction
based on diversity of citizenship. The Magistrate Judge also
concluded that the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction
over this matter and that this case is required to be
remanded to the state court. There are no objections to the
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 Cir. 1983), cert.
denied, 464 U.S. 1050 (1984).
do not object to the Magistrate Judge's finding that
Plaintiff's Complaint does not present a federal question
and that the Court does not have diversity jurisdiction. The
Court does not find any plain error in these conclusions. It
is well-settled that federal-question jurisdiction exists
only when a federal question is presented on the face of a
plaintiff's well-pleaded complaint and that the
assertions of defenses or counterclaims based on federal law
cannot confer federal question jurisdiction over a cause of
action. See Beneficial Nat'l Bank v. Anderson,
539 U.S. 1, 6 (2003); Holmes Group, Inc. v. Vornado Air
Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830-32 (2002). The
record also does not show that the amount in controversy
exceeds the statutory threshold of $75, 000. See 28
U.S.C. § 1332(a); Carter v. Butts Cty., Ga., et
al., 821 F.3d 1310, 1322 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting
Steed v. Fed. Nat'l Mortg. Corp., 689 S.E.2d
843, 848 (Ga.Ct.App. 2009)) (“[U]nder Georgia law,
‘[w]here former owners of real property remain in
possession after a foreclosure sale, they become tenants at
sufferance, '” and are thus subject to a
dispossessory proceeding under O.C.G.A. § 44-7-50, which
“provide[s] the exclusive method by which a landlord
may evict the tenant”); Fed. Home Loan Mortg. Corp.
v. Williams, Nos. 1:07-cv-2864-RWS, 1:07-cv-2865-RWS,
2008 WL 115096, at *2 (N.D.Ga. Jan. 29, 2008) (“[A]
dispossessory proceeding under Georgia law is not an
ownership dispute, but rather only a dispute over the limited
right to possession, title to property is not at issue and,
accordingly, the removing Defendant may not rely on the value
of the property as a whole to satisfy the amount in
the Court lacks both federal question and diversity
jurisdiction, this action is required to be remanded to the
Magistrate Court of Newton County. See 28 U.S.C.
§ 1447(c) (“If at any time before final judgment
it appears that the district court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction, the case shall be remanded.”).
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Magistrate Judge Walter E. Johnson's Final Report ...