Burton v. Southern Hills Pavilion ( 2024 )

1 2 3 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 4 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 5 * * * 6 ARIANA BURTON, Case No. 2:24-cv-00447-MMD-NJK 7 Plaintiff, ORDER v. 8 SOUTHERN HILLS PAVILLION, et al., 9 Defendants. 10 11 Pro se Plaintiff Ariana Burton submitted a civil complaint and an application to 12 proceed in forma pauperis (“IFP”). (ECF Nos. 1, 1-1.) The Court dismissed Burton’s initial 13 complaint with leave to amend for failure to establish subject matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 14 3.) Burton filed an amended complaint. (ECF No. 5.) Now before the Court is the Report 15 and Recommendation (“R&R”) of United States Magistrate Judge Nancy J. Koppe, 16 recommending that the Court dismiss this action without prejudice for lack of subject 17 matter jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7.) Objections to the R&R were due by May 13, 2024. (See 18 id.) To date, Plaintiff has not objected to the R&R. For this reason and as described below, 19 the Court adopts the R&R in full and dismisses this action without prejudice. 20 Because there was no objection, the Court need not conduct de novo review, and 21 is satisfied that Judge Koppe did not clearly err. See United States v. Reyna-Tapia, 328 22 F.3d 1114, 1116 (9th Cir. 2003) (“De novo review of the magistrate judges’ findings and 23 recommendations is required if, but only if, one or both parties file objections to the 24 findings and recommendations.”) (emphasis in original). The Court has a duty to ensure 25 that it has subject matter jurisdiction over the dispute before it, an issue it may raise at 26 any time during the proceedings. See, e.g., Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3); McCauley v. Ford 27 Motor Co., 264 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 2001) (“The party asserting federal jurisdiction 28 bears the burden of proving that the case is properly in federal court.”). On April 18, 2024, 1 || the Court issued an order finding that Plaintiff failed to plead subject matter jurisdiction or 2 || to comply with Rule 8 in her initial complaint. (ECF No. 3.) Plaintiff filed an amended 3 || complaint. (ECF No. 5.) In the R&R, Judge Koppe now recommends dismissal because, 4 || although the amended complaint is hard to discern, it contains no allegations that invoke 5 || either diversity jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction. (ECF No. 7 at 1.) See 28 U.S.C. 6 || § 1332(a) (establishing federal court diversity jurisdiction when parties to an action are 7 || citizens of different states); 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (establishing federal question jurisdiction). 8 || The amended complaint appears to seek to bring a claim for stalking and harassment 9 || against a psychiatric facility and indicates only that jurisdiction exists for “U.S. 10 || Government Plaintiff.” (ECF No. 5.) The Court thus agrees with Judge Koppe that 11 || dismissal without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction is appropriate. 12 It is therefore ordered that Judge Koppe’s Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 13 || 7) is accepted and adopted in full. 14 It is further ordered that this action is dismissed without prejudice. 15 The Clerk of Court is directed to enter judgment accordingly and to close this case. 16 DATED THIS 22" Day of May 2024. 18 MIRANDAM.DU- SS 19 CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28