Harrison v. Young

District Court, N.D. Mississippi

Harrison v. Young

Trial Court Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI ABERDEEN DIVISION MARCO V. HARRISON, JR. PLAINTIFF V. NO. 1:23-cv-00129-GHD-DAS ANDREW YOUNG and THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON DEFENDANTS

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION On consideration of the file and records in this action, the Court finds that the Report and Recommendation [11] of the United States Magistrate Judge dated August 16, 2024, regarding the dismissal without prejudice of this pro se action, because the Court does not possess subject matter jurisdiction over the Plaintiff's claims, was on that date duly served upon the Plaintiff; and the Plaintiff's objections [15] thereto have been filed and reviewed by the Court. The Magistrate Judge issued the Report and Recommendation after reviewing the Plaintiff's Complaint pursuant to

28 U.S.C. § 1915

(e)(2) because the Plaintiff is proceeding in forma pauperis [12]. For the reasons aptly set forth in the Magistrate Judge’s Report and Recommendation, the Court is of the opinion that the Report and Recommendation should be approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court. The Plaintiff's Complaint asserts claims for solely state law causes of action, despite seeking to invoke the Court’s jurisdiction under

28 U.S.C. § 1331

, which requires a federal question, and invoking statutes that do not provide a private cause of action. Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams,

482 U.S. 386, 392

(1987). The Court shall therefore dismiss the Plaintiff's claims without prejudice. See, e.g., Thompson v. Mississippi Power Co., No. 2:24-CV-13,

2024 WL 3390607

, at *2 (S.D. Miss., Apr. 12, 2024). The Court therefore hereby ORDERS the following: 1) the Report and Recommendation [11] of the United States Magistrate Judge dated August 16, 2024, is hereby approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court; 2) this Court is without subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate the Plaintiff's claims; and 3) the Plaintiff's claims are DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE, and this case is CLOSED. IP 30 SO ORDERED, this, the day of September, 2024.

SENIOR U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE

Reference

Status
Unknown