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 Alan J.
Baverman's Final Report and Recommendation 
(“Final R&R”), which recommends remanding
this action to the State Court of Rockdale County, Georgia.
Also before the Court is Defendant Shikema Fluellen's
(“Defendant”) Response to Order and
Recommendation  (“Objections”) and
Defendant's Application to Appeal In Forma
Pauperis  (“Application to Appeal”).
in early 2018, Plaintiff Conyers Housing Corporation
(“Plaintiff”) initiated a dispossessory
proceeding against Defendant in the State Court of Rockdale
County, Georgia (the “Rockdale County
Action”). On April 18, 2018, Defendant, proceeding
pro se, filed her Notice of Removal  seeking to
remove the Rockdale County Action. Defendant seeks to removal
on the grounds that the dispossessory proceedings are
occurring in violation of the Due Process Clause of the
Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, are
in violation of “UCC 306, ” and Defendant has a
bankruptcy appeal currently pending in this Court. ([1.2] at
April 18, 2018, the Magistrate Judge issued his Final
R&R, recommending that this action be remanded to the
State Court of Rockdale County for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction. On May 10, 2018, Plaintiff filed her
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). If a petitioner does not
specifically object to any of the Magistrate Judge's
findings or recommendations, the Court reviews the report and
recommendation for plain error. Id.; see also
Marsden v. Moore, 847 F.2d 1536, 1548 (11th Cir. 1988).
Because Defendant's Objections lack specificity, the
Court reviews the Final R&R 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 first found Defendant has failed to show
diversity of citizenship because she cannot meet the
amount-in-controversy requirement and there is no indication
there is diversity of citizenship between the parties. (
at 6). The Magistrate Judge next found that “there is
no indication that Plaintiff's complaint raises anything
more than a dispossessory claim.” (Id. at 8).
The Magistrate Judge ultimately concluded Defendant
“improvidently removed the state-court action to this
Court.” ( at 3).
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 State Court of
Rockdale County, Georgia. The Court finds no plain error in
the Magistrate Judge's findings and recommendations.
foregoing reasons, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that
Magistrate Judge Alan J. Baverman's Final Report and
Recommendation  is ADOPTED.
IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Response to
Order and ...