Opinion
23-CV-159 (JLS) (HKS)
10-21-2024
JERMAINE JEVON HOWARD, Plaintiff, v. SHAWN JAY-Z CARTER, Defendant.
DECISION AND ORDER
JOHN L. SINATRA, JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Pro se Plaintiff Jermaine Jevon Howard commenced this diversity action on February 21, 2024 alleging a defamation claim against Defendant Shawn Jay-Z Carter. See Dkt. 1. On May 1, 2023, Defendant moved to dismiss the Complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for failure to state a claim. Dkt. 8. Plaintiff subsequently moved for summary judgment. Dkt. 19-20.
On November 13, 2023, Judge Schroeder issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”), recommending that this Court grant Defendant's motion to dismiss and deny Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Dkt. 36, at 12.Defendant construed Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment as a response to Defendant's motion to dismiss and filed a reply. Dkt. 22. Defendant also responded to Plaintiffs motion for summary judgment. Id. On November 29, 2023, Plaintiff objected to the R&R. Dkt. 38. Defendant responded to Plaintiffs objections, Dkt. 40, and Plaintiff replied. Dkt. 41.
This Court referred the case to United States Magistrate Judge H. Kenneth Schroeder, Jr. for all proceedings under 28 U.S.C. §§ 636(b)(1)(A), (B), and (C). Dkt. 13.
The page numbers refer to the CM/ECF pagination in the header of each page.
A district court may accept, reject, or modify the findings or recommendations of a magistrate judge. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). A district court must conduct a de novo review of those portions of a magistrate judge's recommendation to which a party objects. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C); Fed.R.Civ.P. 72(b)(3). But neither 28 U.S.C. § 636 nor Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72 requires a district court to review the recommendation of a magistrate judge to which no objections are raised. See Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 149-50 (1985).
This Court carefully reviewed the R&R, the objections briefing, and the relevant record. Based on its de novo review, the Court accepts and adopts Judge Schroeder's recommendation to the extent that it grants Defendant's motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Rhulen Agency, Inc. v. Ala. Ins. Guar. Ass'n, 896 F.2d 674, 678 (2d Cir. 1990) (“Where [. . .] [a] defendant moves for dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1), Fed. R. Civ. P., as well as on other grounds, ‘the court should consider the Rule 12(b)(1) challenge first since if it must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, the accompanying defenses and objections become moot and do not need to be decided.”) (citation omitted); see also Gonzalez v. J.P. Morgan Chase Bank, N.A., 228 F.Supp.3d 277, 282 (S.D.N.Y. 2017) (“[T]he first issue is whether the Court has the subject matter jurisdiction necessary to consider the merits of the action.”).
For the reasons stated above, and in the R&R, this Court GRANTS Defendant's motion to dismiss, solely on the subject matter jurisdiction issue, with leave to amend. All other issues cannot be determined because this Court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to consider the merits of this action. This case is referred back to Judge Schroeder for further proceedings consistent with the referral order entered on May 2, 2023. Dkt. 13.
SO ORDERED.