Opinion
2:22-cv-00432-ART-VCF
08-17-2023
MAKETA S. JOLLY, Plaintiff, v. JOHN WADE HERMINA Defendant.
ORDER
ANNE R. TRAUM, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
I. SUMMARY
Pro se Plaintiff Maketa Jolly brings this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant John Wade Hermina. (ECF No. 1-1.) Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Cam Ferenbach (ECF No. 6) recommending the Court deny Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) and dismiss Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1-1). Plaintiff filed an objection to the R&R. (ECF No. 7(“Objection”).) Because the Court agrees with Judge Ferenbach's analysis, the Court will adopt the R&R in full. Accordingly, the Court dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint for lack of jurisdiction. II. BACKGROUND
The Court incorporates by reference Judge Ferenbach's recitation of Plaintiff's allegations in the complaint, provided in the R&R, which the Court adopts. (ECF No. 6 at 4.) Plaintiff brings claims against her former attorney and his law firm, John Hermina and the Hermina Law Group, regarding their representation in cases before the United States District of New York and the United States District of Pennsylvania in 2004, because she was unhappy with their services. (ECF No. 6 at 4.)
III. LEGAL STANDARD
This Court “may accept, reject, or modify, in whole or in part, the findings or recommendations made by the magistrate judge.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). Where a party timely objects to a magistrate judge's report and recommendation, then the Court is required to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the [report and recommendation] to which objection is made.” Id. The Court's review is thus de novo because Plaintiff filed her Objection. (ECF No. 7.)
IV. DISCUSSION
Plaintiff argues in her Objection that this Court should exercise diversity jurisdiction over her case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332. However, as Judge Ferenbach notes, “none of the parties are citizens of Nevada and nothing [Jolly] complains of happened in Nevada.” (ECF No. 6 at 5.) Thus, this Court lacks personal jurisdiction. The Court therefore denies Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis and dismisses Plaintiff's Complaint.
V. CONCLUSION
It is therefore ordered that Plaintiff's objection (ECF No. 7) to the Report and Recommendation of U.S. Magistrate Judge Ferenbach is overruled. The Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 6) is therefore adopted in full.
It is further ordered that the Plaintiff's Application to Proceed in forma pauperis (ECF No. 4) is denied.
It is further ordered that Plaintiff's Complaint (ECF No. 1-1) is dismissed.
It is further ordered that the Clerk of Court enter the judgment accordingly.