Opinion
Civil Action No. 12-cv-3233-WJM-KMT
01-22-2013
MARK HAMILTON, Plaintiff, v. CYRIL GROSSAINT, Defendant.
Judge William J. Martínez
ORDER ADOPTING RECOMMENDATION AND DISMISSING CASE WITHOUT
PREJUDICE FOR LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
This matter is before the Court on the January 10, 2013 Recommendation of United States Magistrate Judge Kathleen M. Tafoya (the "Recommendation") (ECF No. 11) that Plaintiff's Complaint be dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Recommendation is incorporated herein by reference. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b).
The Magistrate Judge issued an Order to Show Cause requiring Plaintiff to show how this federal court has jurisdiction over his Complaint, which alleges a dispute over the ownership of a parcel of property. (ECF No. 5.) The Order to Show Cause informed Plaintiff that a land patent does not confer jurisdiction over matters of property on a federal court and that Plaintiff needed to set forth some other basis for jurisdiction or this case would be dismissed. (ECF No. 5 at 2-3.) Despite this advisement, Plaintiff responded to the Order to Show Cause by reaffirming that jurisdiction exists because of a federal land patent. (ECF No. 10.) Because Plaintiff failed to assert any legitimate basis for federal jurisdiction, the Magistrate Judge recommended that this action be dismissed. (ECF No. 11.)
The Recommendation advised the parties that specific written objections were due within fourteen days after being served with a copy of the Recommendation. (ECF No. 43, at 1 n.1.) Plaintiff filed a timely Objection along with what appears to be a relatively complete history of the transfer of interest in the parcel of land in dispute in this action. (ECF No. 15.) This Objection again argues that this Court has jurisdiction because the property was originally conveyed by a federal land grant. (ECF No. 15.) Nothing in the additional documents filed by Plaintiff in support of his Objection establish a different grounds for federal jurisdiction.
The Court has reviewed the issues de novo and agrees with the Recommendation. The United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has held that, where a complaint "asserts no basis for federal jurisdiction other than the fact his land was obtained via a federal land patent, the district court clearly lacked subject matter jurisdiction over his claims and properly dismissed his complaint under Rule 12(b)(1)." Corrigan v. Leclair, 206 F. App'x 771, 773 (10th Cir. 2006). Plaintiff was advised of this case law on two occasions has done nothing to distinguish this case from Corrigan. Plaintiff was given adequate opportunity to come forward with some alternate basis for federal jurisdiction but has failed to do so.
In accordance with the foregoing, the Court ORDERS as follows: 1. The Magistrate Judge's Recommendation (ECF No. 11) is ACCEPTED and ADOPTED; 2. Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1) is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject matter jurisdiction; and 3. The Clerk shall close the case.
BY THE COURT:
_______________
William J. Martínez
United States District Judge