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 Defendant Chanel Whitson's
(“Defendant” or “Whitson”) Objections
 to Magistrate Judge Janet F. King's Final Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”) . The R&R
grants Defendant's request to proceed in forma
pauperis solely for the limited purpose of determining
whether this action has been properly removed to this Court.
The R&R also finds that this Court lacks subject matter
jurisdiction over this action and recommends that this case
be remanded to the Magistrate Court of Henry County.
January 4, 2018, Plaintiff Lince Management
(“Lince”) initiated a dispossessory proceeding
(“Complaint”) against Defendant in the Magistrate
Court of Henry County, Georgia. ([1.1] at 4). The Complaint
seeks possession of premises currently occupied by Defendant,
past due rent, and court costs. (Id.)
January 29, 2018, Defendant, proceeding pro se,
removed the Henry County action to this Court by filing her
Notice of Removal and IFP Application. (). Defendant
claims in her Notice of Removal that “Respondent”
violated her due process rights under the 14th
Amendment and UCC 306. ([1.1] at 2).
January 31, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued her R&R,
which recommends dismissing this action for lack of subject
matter jurisdiction. The Magistrate Judge found that the
complaint did not present a federal question and that
diversity jurisdiction did not exist. ( at 2-5). The
Magistrate Judge further concluded that Defendant is not
entitled to a stay of dispossessory proceedings. ( at 5).
February 9, 2018, Defendant filed a Response , requesting
that “the court to reconsider its decision to allow
this case to remain in Henry County Magistrate Court.”
( at 1). Defendant argues that she has not been given an
adequate chance to present evidence and asserts her belief
that the judge should have recused himself because of prior
dealings with Plaintiff. ( at 1).
Standard of Review of the Magistrate Judge's
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). This
requires that the district judge “give fresh
consideration to those issues to which specific objection has
been made by a party.” Jeffrey S. v. State Bd. of
Educ. of Ga., 896 F.2d 507, 512 (11th Cir. 1990)
(internal quotation marks omitted). 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
Objection  merely reasserts that this Court should
exercise jurisdiction to hear this case. The Objection does
not identify with any specificity any error in the Magistrate
Judge's findings regarding jurisdiction or provide any
additional facts pertinent to subject matter jurisdiction.
Subject Matter Jurisdiction
Court finds no plain error in the Magistrate Judge's
finding that this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.
See Slay, 714 F.2d at 1095. Even if the Court were
to consider Defendant's Objection  sufficient to
require a de novo review, it is clear that this
Court does not have jurisdiction to hear this dispossessory
Eleventh Circuit has consistently 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). “[O]nce a ...