Opinion
3:22-CV-2477-X-BN
02-20-2023
NIKISHA PUGH, ET AL., Plaintiffs, v. TERRY PRICE, ET AL., Defendants.
ORDER ACCEPTING FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE
BRANTLEY STARR, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
The United States Magistrate Judge made findings, conclusions, and a recommendation in this case. [Doc. No. 4]. Specifically, the Magistrate Judge concluded that Plaintiffs' complaint failed to allege a basis for finding diversity or federal-question jurisdiction.
Plaintiffs present two responses. First, they ask “why this case does not meet jurisdiction?”But that query does nothing to meet Plaintiffs' burden of establishing the Court's jurisdiction. Second, they note that Price's first name is “Teran,” not “Terry.”But Price's first name has no impact on the Magistrate Judge's jurisdictional analysis.
Doc. No. 7 at 1.
Doc. No. 5 at 1.
Accordingly, the Court reviewed de novo those portions of the proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation to which objection was made, and reviewed the remaining proposed findings, conclusions, and recommendation for plain error. Finding none, the Court ACCEPTS the Findings, Conclusions, and Recommendation of the United States Magistrate Judge. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES this case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, DENIES Pugh's motion to amend [Doc. No. 5], and FINDS AS MOOT Pugh's request for service [Doc. No. 6].
IT IS SO ORDERED.