From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Woodhull v. Mascarella

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division
Jun 24, 2009
CASE NO. 1:08cv151-SPM/AK (N.D. Fla. Jun. 24, 2009)

Opinion

CASE NO. 1:08cv151-SPM/AK.

June 24, 2009


ORDER


THIS CAUSE comes before the court on the Magistrate Judge's Second Report and Recommendation dated March 19, 2009 (doc. 26). The parties have been afforded an opportunity to file objections pursuant to Title 28, United States Code, Section 636(b)(1). Plaintiff has filed objections (doc. 27). Having considered the report and recommendation, I have determined that the report and recommendation should be adopted.

Plaintiff has failed to allege underlying facts to establish that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, as required for jurisdiction based on diversity of citizenship. Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED as follows:

1. The magistrate judge's report and recommendation (doc. 26) is ADOPTED and incorporated by reference in this order.

2. This case is dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction. The dismissal does not prevent Plaintiff from pursuing her claims in state court.

DONE AND ORDERED.


Summaries of

Woodhull v. Mascarella

United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division
Jun 24, 2009
CASE NO. 1:08cv151-SPM/AK (N.D. Fla. Jun. 24, 2009)
Case details for

Woodhull v. Mascarella

Case Details

Full title:ANGELA WOODHULL, Plaintiff, v. SHIRLEY MASCARELLA, Defendant

Court:United States District Court, N.D. Florida, Gainesville Division

Date published: Jun 24, 2009

Citations

CASE NO. 1:08cv151-SPM/AK (N.D. Fla. Jun. 24, 2009)

Citing Cases

Montano v. Wash. State Dep't of Health

[ECF No. 1, ¶¶ 55-56 (emphasis added)]. “Specific information must be provided to support the[ ] elements…

Lefrock v. Walgreens Co.

Walgreens correctly points out that “[s]pecific information must be provided to support these elements such…