Opinion
C. A 4:23-3865-RBH-KDW
08-09-2023
Wondell Timmons, Jr., Plaintiff, v. Charles Edward Floyd, Defendant.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
KAYMANI D. WEST, FLORENCE, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Wondell Timmons, Jr. (“Plaintiff”), proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this Complaint seeking to recover monetary damages from Defendant for injuries he sustained in an automobile accident. ECF No. 1 at 5-6. Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Local Civ. Rule 73.02(B)(2)(e) (D.S.C.), the undersigned is authorized to review such complaints for relief and submit findings and recommendations to the district judge. For the reasons that follow, the undersigned recommends that the district judge dismiss the Complaint without prejudice and without issuance and service of process.
II. Discussion
A. Standard of Review
Plaintiff filed this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, which permits an indigent litigant to commence an action in federal court without prepaying the administrative costs of proceeding with the lawsuit. To protect against possible abuses of this privilege, the statute allows a district court to dismiss the case upon a finding that an action fails to state a claim on which relief may be granted or is frivolous or malicious. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(i), (ii). A finding of frivolity can be made where the complaint lacks an arguable basis either in law or in fact. Denton v. Hernandez, 504 U.S. 25, 31 (1992). A claim based on a meritless legal theory may be dismissed sua sponte under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). See Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 (1989); Allison v. Kyle, 66 F.3d 71, 73 (5th Cir. 1995).
Pro se complaints are held to a less stringent standard than those drafted by attorneys. Gordon v. Leeke, 574 F.2d 1147, 1151 (4th Cir. 1978). A federal district court is charged with liberally construing a complaint filed by a pro se litigant to allow the development of a potentially meritorious case. Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). In evaluating a pro se complaint, the plaintiff's allegations are assumed to be true. Fine v. City of N.Y., 529 F.2d 70, 74 (2d Cir. 1975). The mandated liberal construction afforded to pro se pleadings means that if the court can reasonably read the pleadings to state a valid claim on which the plaintiff could prevail, it should do so. Nevertheless, the requirement of liberal construction does not mean that the court can ignore a clear failure in the pleadings to allege facts that set forth a claim currently cognizable in a federal district court. Weller v. Dep't of Soc. Servs., 901 F.2d 387, 390-91 (4th Cir. 1990).
B. Analysis
Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction “constrained to exercise only the authority conferred by Article III of the Constitution and affirmatively granted by federal statute.” In re Bulldog Trucking, Inc., 147 F.3d 347, 352 (4th Cir. 1998). A federal court shall therefore dismiss a complaint, sua sponte, if the court determines there is not a valid basis for its jurisdiction. Id. at 352; see also Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(h)(3) (“If the court determines at any time that it lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.”). A plaintiff's complaint must contain sufficient facts to establish jurisdiction. McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 298 U.S. 178, 189 (1936); see also Dracos v. Hellenic Lines, Ltd., 762 F.2d 348, 350 (4th Cir. 1985) (“[P]laintiffs must affirmatively plead the jurisdiction of the federal court.”). When a complaint fails to include “an affirmative pleading of a jurisdictional basis[,] a federal court may find that it has jurisdiction if the facts supporting jurisdiction have been clearly pleaded.” Pinkley, Inc. v. City of Frederick, MD., 191 F.3d 394, 399 (4th Cir. 1999). However, after viewing the allegations in the light most favorable to a plaintiff, and finding insufficient allegations in the pleadings, the court will lack subject matter jurisdiction. Id.
Diversity of citizenship, 28 U.S.C. § 1332, and federal question, 28 U.S.C. § 1331, are the two most commonly recognized and utilized bases for federal court jurisdiction. Diversity of citizenship requires complete diversity of parties and an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000. Complete diversity of parties in a case means that no party on one side may be a citizen of the same state as any party on the other side. See Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 nn.13-16 (1978). Plaintiff fails to demonstrate facts to satisfy the requirements for diversity jurisdiction as Plaintiff and Defendant are South Carolina citizens. Accordingly, the court does not have diversity jurisdiction over this case.
Federal question jurisdiction exist over claims “arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The allegations of Plaintiff's Complaint do not reference a violation of any federal statute or constitutional provisions. Instead, Plaintiff asserts a state law personal injury claim against Defendant. This court does not have subject matter jurisdiction under § 1331 over a state law claim. Because Plaintiff has not shown that the court has federal question jurisdiction over his claims, his Complaint is subject to summary dismissal.
III. Conclusion and Recommendation
For the foregoing reasons, the undersigned recommends the court dismiss the Complaint without prejudice to his right to bring these claims in an appropriate jurisdiction.
IT IS SO RECOMMENDED.
The parties are directed to note the important information in the attached “Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation.”
Notice of Right to File Objections to Report and Recommendation
The parties are advised that they may file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation with the District Judge. Objections must specifically identify the portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objections are made and the basis for such objections. [I]n the absence of a timely filed objection, a district court need not conduct a de novo review, but instead must only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record to accept the recommendation. Diamond v. Colonial Life & Acc. Ins. Co., 416 F.3d 310 (4th Cir. 2005) (quoting Fed.R.Civ.P. 72 advisory committee's note).
Specific written objections must be filed within fourteen (14) days of the date of service of this Report and Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b); see Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(a), (d). Filing by mail pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 5 may be accomplished by mailing objections to:
Robin L. Blume, Clerk
United States District Court
Post Office Box 2317
Florence, South Carolina 29503
Failure to timely file specific written objections to this Report and Recommendation will result in waiver of the right to appeal from a judgment of the District Court based upon such Recommendation. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985); Wright v. Collins, 766 F.2d 841 (4th Cir. 1985); United States v. Schronce, 727 F.2d 91 (4th Cir. 1984).