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 Linda T.
Walker's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“Final R&R”), which recommends remanding
this action to the Magistrate Court of Coweta County,
December 4, 2017, Plaintiff Chartwell Preston Mill
(“Plaintiffs”) initiated a dispossessory
proceeding against Defendants Cheryl Doughty, Sean Bell, and
Shawn Hawkins (“Defendants”) in the Magistrate
Court of Coweta County (the “Coweta County
Action”). ([1.1] at 10). On April 27, 2018,
Defendants, proceeding pro se, filed their Notice of
Removal [1.1] seeking to remove the Coweta County Action to
this Court. Defendant argues removal is proper under 28
U.S.C. § 1331, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1441(b)-(c), (e), 29 U.S.C. §§
1443(1)-(2), and 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d). ([1.1] at 1).
Defendant also alleges, without further explanation, that the
Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Bill of Rights,
various Amendments of the U.S. Constitution, the
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, and the
Universal Declaration of Human Rights. ([1.1] at 1-2).
17, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued her Final R&R,
recommending that this action be remanded to the Magistrate
Court of Coweta County for lack of 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 Final 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 concluded that “it is clear that the
Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the instant
lawsuit.” ( at 2). The Magistrate Judge found that,
“[i]n this case, Plaintiff's dispossessory claim
arises solely under state law.” (Id. at 4).
The Magistrate Judge found further that, “[a]lthough
Defendant argues the matter is removable on the grounds that
the dispossessory action violated various federal laws, the
Bill of Rights, and the United States Constitution, a federal
question present in a counterclaim or defense is not a proper
basis for removal of a complaint.” (Id.). The
Magistrate Judge found finally that Defendant's Notice of
Removal fails to allege facts sufficient to show that the
parties are diverse or that the $75, 000 jurisdictional
threshold is met. (Id at 5).
therefore 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 Coweta County, Georgia. The Court finds no plain
error in the Magistrate Judge's findings and
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Magistrate Judge Linda T. Walker's Final Report ...