Opinion
No. 3:05-CV-0171-K.
March 21, 2005
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
Pursuant to the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and an order of the court in implementation thereof, this case has been referred to the United States Magistrate Judge. The findings, conclusions and recommendation of the Magistrate Judge, as evidenced by his signature thereto, are as follows:
FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS:
Type of Case: This is an unspecified civil action.
Parties: Plaintiff is a resident of Grand Prairie, Texas. Defendants are Dr. Bill W. Timberlake and Chiro Claim's Plus of Dallas, Texas. The court has not issued process in this case.
Statement of Case: The complaint alleges that Chiro Claim's Plus, Plaintiff's workers compensation carrier, denied workers compensation benefits by improperly relying on a letter from Dr. Timberlake's office, which stated that Plaintiff suffered from only a minor back pain.
Findings and Conclusions: Before addressing the complaint, the court must first examine the threshold question of whether it has subject matter jurisdiction. That is an issue of paramount concern, and should be addressed, sua sponte if necessary, at the inception of any federal action. System Pipe Supply, Inc. v. M/V Viktor Kurnatovsky, 242 F.3d 322, 324 (5th Cir. 2001);Moody v. Empire Life Ins. Co., 849 F.2d 902, 904 (5th Cir. 1988). Unless otherwise provided by statute, federal court jurisdiction requires (1) a federal question arising under the Constitution, a federal law or a treaty, see 28 U.S.C. § 1331, or (2) complete diversity of citizenship between adverse parties and at least $75,000 in controversy, see 28 U.S.C. § 1332.
The complaint relates to the denial of workers compensation benefits; it does not implicate any federal statutory or constitutional rights. Plaintiff merely alleges that Dr. Timberlake's letter was "unconstitutional." Insofar as Plaintiff seeks to rely on 42 U.S.C. § 1983, he has not alleged a deprivation under color of state law. See West v. Atkins, 487 U.S. 42, 48 (1988) (a plaintiff must allege two elements to raise a claim under § 1983: (1) a deprivation of a right secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States, and (2) a deprivation of that right by the defendant acting under color of state law). Neither Dr. Timberlake nor Chiro Claim's Plus appear to be state actors.
Lastly, Plaintiff cannot rely on diversity of citizenship as a jurisdictional basis. It is clear from the face of the complaint that Plaintiff and the Defendants are citizens of the state of Texas.
RECOMMENDATION:
For the foregoing reasons, it is recommended that this action be dismissed for want of jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b), of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
It is further recommended that Plaintiff's motions for the appointment of counsel filed on January 26, 2005, and March 9, 2005, be denied as moot.
A copy of this recommendation will be mailed to Plaintiff.