SMITH et al v. BAUER et al, No. 1:2021cv02045 - Document 6 (S.D. Ind. 2021)

Court Description: ENTRY DISMISSING ACTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT - In the Entry of July 19, 2021, the Court screened the Complaint and explained that it is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e) (2)(B) becau se there were no allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction between the parties or federal question jurisdiction (Filing No. 3). The Court gave the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint no later than August 13, 2021, and show cause wh y this case should not be dismissed because of a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 11, 2021 (Filing No. 5); however, the filing fails to address or cure the problem of the initial Complaint con cerning a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Court gave notice to the Plaintiff regarding the jurisdictional deficiencies of his initial Complaint and provided him with an opportunity to respond. See Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816, 819 (7th Cir. 2014). Because the Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies of his initial Complaint, for the reasons discussed in the screening Entry, this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) (B). Final judgment consistent with this Entry will be issued under separate order. (Copy to Plaintiff via U.S. mail) Signed by Judge Tanya Walton Pratt on 8/25/2021.(JDC)

Download PDF
SMITH et al v. BAUER et al Doc. 6 Case 1:21-cv-02045-TWP-TAB Document 6 Filed 08/25/21 Page 1 of 2 PageID #: 194 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION DONALD ROY SMITH, Plaintiff, v. AUTUMN TRAILS APARTMENTS, VANDY MARIE BAUER, GILLIAN DOWNHAM, and MUHAMED BECOVIC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) No. 1:21-cv-02045-TWP-TAB ENTRY DISMISSING ACTION AND DIRECTING ENTRY OF FINAL JUDGMENT In the Entry of July 19, 2021, the Court screened the Complaint and explained that it is subject to dismissal for lack of jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B) because there were no allegations supporting diversity jurisdiction between the parties or federal question jurisdiction (Filing No. 3). The Court gave the Plaintiff an opportunity to amend his Complaint no later than August 13, 2021, and show cause why this case should not be dismissed because of a lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on August 11, 2021 (Filing No. 5); however, the filing fails to address or cure the problem of the initial Complaint concerning a lack of subjectmatter jurisdiction. The Court gave notice to the Plaintiff regarding the jurisdictional deficiencies of his initial Complaint and provided him with an opportunity to respond. See Aljabri v. Holder, 745 F.3d 816, 819 (7th Cir. 2014). Because the Plaintiff has failed to cure the deficiencies of his initial Complaint, for the reasons discussed in the screening Entry, this action is dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B). Final judgment consistent with this Entry will be issued under separate order. Dockets.Justia.com Case 1:21-cv-02045-TWP-TAB Document 6 Filed 08/25/21 Page 2 of 2 PageID #: 195 SO ORDERED. Date: 8/25/2021 Distribution: DONALD ROY SMITH 7355 Shadeland Station Way, Apt. 130 Indianapolis, IN 46256 2

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.