Opinion
22-22624-CIV-WILLIAMS
11-28-2022
SHERESE GODSCHILD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. YASSET ELMUZA, et al., Defendants.
Sherese Godschild, Pro Se. King Godschild, Pro Se c/o Sherese Godschild. Queen Godschild, Pro Se.
Sherese Godschild, Pro Se.
King Godschild, Pro Se c/o Sherese Godschild.
Queen Godschild, Pro Se.
ORDER
KATHLEEN M. WILLIAMS, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
THIS MATTER is before the Court on U.S. Magistrate Judge Chris M. McAliley's Report and Recommendation (“the Report”) (DE 7) that the Court dismiss the above-captioned case with prejudice. On August 17, 2022, pro se Plaintiff Sherese Godschild initiated this case on behalf of herself and her two minor children (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) pursuant to the federal Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (“FDCPA”), which is codified in relevant part at 15 U.S.C. §§ 1692 and 1692p. (DE 1.) On the same day, Plaintiffs also filed the Motion for Leave to Proceed In Forma Pauperis (“IFP Motion”) (DE 3) pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a) (“Section 1915”), which the Court's Order of Referral and Notice of Court Practice and Procedures referred to Judge McAliley for a report and recommendation. (DE 5.) As Judge McAliley stated in the Report, Section 1915 requires the Court to dismiss an action brought in forma pauperis at any time, upon determining that the action fails to state a claim for which relief may be granted. (DE 7 at 2); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)(ii).
Although Judge McAliley recommends that the Court grant Plaintiffs' IFP Motion, she also has determined that the Complaint “does not state a claim for relief under the FDCPA.” (DE 7 at 4.) Specifically, Judge McAliley's Report states that Plaintiff “has not shown, nor is she able to, that Defendants are ‘debt collector[s]' within the meaning of the [FDCPA],” because the Complaint “does not allege facts that show that Defendants regularly collect debts for another .... [and] the business Defendants, and their principals, are alleged to be in the business of providing tow and auto repair services,” as opposed to collecting debts. (Id. at 4-5.) Judge McAliley has also determined that the Complaint's subsequent allegations of fraud and deception against Defendants cannot be properly raised in this Court. (Id. at 5.) Given that Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim for relief under the FDCPA, the Report notes that no federal question exists for the Court to adjudicate. (Id.); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1331. And given that Plaintiffs have failed to show that they are completely diverse from every named Defendant, the Report also states that this Court lacks diversity jurisdiction. (DE 7 at 5); see also 28 U.S.C. § 1332. Accordingly, the Report recommends that the Court dismiss this action with prejudice. No objections have been filed.
Having reviewed the Report, Plaintiffs' IFP Motion, and the underlying record, the Court agrees with Judge McAliley's conclusions and recommendations. Therefore, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED as follows:
1. The conclusions in the Report (DE 7) are AFFIRMED AND ADOPTED.
2. Plaintiffs' IFP Motion (DE 3) is GRANTED.
3. However, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915, Plaintiffs' Complaint (DE 1) is DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
4. Any other pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT.
5. Any forthcoming deadlines, hearings, and/or trial settings are CANCELED.
6. The Clerk of Court is directed to CLOSE this case.
DONE AND ORDERED.