United States District Court, N.D. Georgia, Atlanta Division
OPINION AND ORDER
WILLIAM S. DUFFEY, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter is before the Court on Magistrate Judge Catherine M.
Salinas's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“Final R&R”), which recommends remanding
this action to the Magistrate Court of Clayton County,
March 20, 2018, Solby Jones Property Management Inc.
(“Plaintiff”) initiated a dispossessory
proceeding against Defendant Yhanna Palmer
(“Defendant”), in the Magistrate Court of Clayton
County, Georgia. Plaintiff seeks the eviction of Defendant,
who allegedly holds a rental lease agreement to the property
located at 930 Silverwood Drive, Atlanta, Georgia 30349.
([1.1] at 3).
March 21, 2018, Defendant, proceeding pro se,
removed the Clayton County Action to this Court by filing her
Notice of Removal [1.1]. Defendant asserts that federal
subject matter jurisdiction exists because there is a
question of federal law in this action. (Id.).
March 22, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued his Final
R&R, recommending that this action be remanded to state
court for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. (). The
parties did not file objections to the R&R.
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 (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). Where, as here, the
parties have not filed objections to the R&R, the Court
reviews it for plain error.
courts “have an independent obligation to determine
whether subject-matter jurisdiction exists, even in the
absence of a challenge from any party.” Arbaugh v.
Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). The Eleventh
Circuit consistently has held that “a court should
inquire into whether it has subject matter jurisdiction at
the earliest possible stage in the proceedings. Indeed, it is
well settled that a federal court is obligated to inquire
into subject matter jurisdiction sua sponte whenever
it may be lacking.” Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco
Co., 168 F.3d 405, 410 (11th Cir. 1999). “Federal
courts exercise limited jurisdiction and generally can hear
only actions that either meet the requirements for diversity
jurisdiction or that involve a federal question.”
Kivisto v. Kulmala, 497 Fed.Appx. 905, 906 (11th
Cir. 2012). Diversity jurisdiction exists where the amount in
controversy exceeds $75, 000 and the suit is between citizens
of different states. 28 U.S.C § 1332(a).
“[F]ederal-question jurisdiction may be based on a
civil action alleging a violation of the Constitution, or
asserting a federal cause of action established by a
congressionally created expressed or implied private remedy
for violations of a federal statute.” Jairath v.
Dyer, 154 F.3d 1280, 1282 (11th Cir. 1998). “The
removing party bears the burden of proof regarding the
existence of federal subject matter jurisdiction.”
City of Vestavia Hills v. Gen. Fidelity Ins. Co.,
676 F.3d 1310, 1313 n.1 (11th Cir. 2012).
Magistrate Judge found, as to federal question jurisdiction,
that “[t]he underlying action is a dispossessory action
which is based solely on state law.” ( at 3);
see also Citimortgage, Inc. v. Dhinoja, 705
F.Supp.2d 1378, 1381 (N.D.Ga. 2010) (citation omitted). The
Magistrate Judge concluded that, “Defendant has failed
to meet her burden of establishing that this Court has
jurisdiction over the underlying dispossessory
proceeding.” ( at 3); see also Dhinoja, 705
F.Supp.2d at 1381 (“If a federal question is not
presented on the face of the complaint, it is no substitute
that the defendant is almost certain to raise a federal
has not shown that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction
over this state dispossessory proceeding, and this action is
required to be remanded to the Magistrate Court of Clayton
County, Georgia. Cf. Dhinoja, 705 F.Supp.2d 1378
(finding that the court lacked federal jurisdiction over a
state dispossessory action, after it had been removed, and
remanding to state court for further proceedings). The Court
finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge's findings