Opinion
CASE NO. 2:14-CV-1241-WKW [WO]
08-16-2017
QUANDARIAN FAULKNER, Plaintiff, v. TODD INGRAM, et al., Defendants.
ORDER
On July 11, 2017, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 25) to which Plaintiff did not object and Defendants timely objected in part (Doc. # 26). While agreeing with the Recommendation that summary judgment for Defendants is appropriate as to Plaintiff's federal-law claims, Defendants disagree with the Recommendation that Plaintiff's state-law claims be remanded to state court. Rather, Defendants urge this court to dismiss the state law claims with prejudice. (Doc. # 26.) Upon an independent and de novo review of the record and Recommendation, Defendants' objections are due to be overruled.
The Recommendation cites Carnegie-Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484 U.S. 343, 345 (1988), for the well-established principle that the exercise of supplemental jurisdiction is discretionary and should be determined based on "judicial economy, convenience, fairness and comity." (Doc. # 25, at 25-26); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3) (providing that "[t]he district courts may decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a [state law] claim . . . if—(3) the district court has dismissed all claims over which it has original jurisdiction").
"[I]n the usual case in which all federal-law claims are eliminated before trial, the balance of factors . . . will point toward declining to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state-law claims." Carnegie-Mellon Univ., 484 U.S. at 350 n.7. The Eleventh Circuit also has "'encouraged'" district courts to invoke § 1367(c)(3) when "'the federal claims have been dismissed prior to trial.'" Slaughter v. U.S. Dep't of Agric., 555 F. App'x 927, 929 (11th Cir. 2014) (quoting Raney v. Allstate Ins. Co., 370 F.3d 1086, 1089 (11th Cir. 2004)). Moreover, where, as here, the "case was originally filed in state court and removed to federal court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1441, if the district court declines to continue to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, . . . [the] remaining claim should be remanded to state court." Cook ex rel. Estate of Tessier v. Sheriff of Monroe Cnty., Fla., 402 F.3d 1092, 1123 (11th Cir. 2005).
There is no reason to depart from that usual rule here. Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
1. Defendants' objections (Doc. # 26) are OVERRULED;
2. The Recommendation (Doc. # 25) is ADOPTED;
3. Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment (Doc. # 9) is GRANTED as to Plaintiff's Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment claims;
4. Plaintiff's claims challenging the constitutionality of the revocation of Plaintiff's probation are DISMISSED without prejudice;
5. Plaintiff's challenges to the constitutionality of his arrest and his claim of perjury are DISMISSED with prejudice; and
6. Plaintiff's state-law claims are REMANDED back to the Circuit Court of Chilton County, Alabama.
A final judgment will be entered separately.
DONE this 16th day of August, 2017.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE