Deverney v. Westfield Insurance ( 2024 )

EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA BRUCE MICHAEL DEVERNEY CIVIL ACTION VERSUS NO. 23-966 WESTFIELD INSURANCE, ET AL. SECTION “R” (1) ORDER On March 17, 2023, plaintiff Bruce DeVerney, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed this lawsuit against defendants Westfield Insurance and Tanglewood Apartments, seeking to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when he was struck in the head by a metal bar dropped by workers at his apartment building.1 Because it appears from the face of plaintiff’s complaint that complete diversity is lacking, Magistrate Judge Janis van Meerveld issued a show cause order requiring DeVerney to state particular allegations of fact or authority that might establish federal subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.2 DeVerney filed a response to the show cause order reiterating his allegation that he was struck by a metal bar, but failing to point to any facts or authority that might establish subject-matter jurisdiction over the action.3 Accordingly, Magistrate Judge van Meerveld 1 R. Doc. 1. 2 R. Docs. 3 & 6. 3 R. Doc. 7. issued a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) recommending that DeVerney’s complaint be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.4 No party objected to the R&R. The Court thus reviews the R&R for clear error. See Douglass v. United Servs. Auto. Ass’n, 79 F.3d 1415, 1430 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds, 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) advisory committee’s note (1983) (“When no timely objection is filed, the court need only satisfy itself that there is no clear error on the face of the record in order to accept the recommendation.”). The Court finds no clear error. Therefore, the Court adopts the R&R as its opinion. Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES plaintiffs complaint WITHOUT PREJUDICE for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. New Orleans, Louisiana, this _23rd__ day of May, 2024. bore Vaver SARAH S. VANCE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 4 R. Doc. 8.