Jones et al v. Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, The et al, No. 1:2013cv00979 - Document 6 (W.D. Mich. 2014)
Court Description: OPINION AND ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 4 ; denying objection 5 ; Judgment to issue; signed by Judge Janet T. Neff (Judge Janet T. Neff, rmw)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION MAURINE JONES and PRECIOUS JONES, Case No. 1:13-cv-979 Plaintiffs, HON. JANET T. NEFF v THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELLON TRUST CO., N.A., et al., Defendants. _______________________________/ OPINION AND ORDER Plaintiffs, proceeding pro se, initiated the present action against the Bank of New York Mellon Trust Company, N.A. and two individuals, by filing a Notice of Appeal (Dkt 1). Plaintiffs indicated they request an Appeal because they were not given the opportunity to present or defend their case in a hearing or trial (id. at 2). The matter was referred to the Magistrate Judge, who issued a Report and Recommendation (R&R), recommending that this Court dismiss the action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The matter is presently before the Court on Plaintiffs Objection to the Report and Recommendation. In accordance with 28 U.S.C. ยง 636(b)(1) and FED. R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3), the Court has performed de novo consideration of those portions of the Report and Recommendation to which objection has been made. The Court denies the objection and issues this Opinion and Order. Further, this Court will enter a Judgment consistent with this Opinion and Order. See FED. R. CIV. P. 58. The Magistrate Judge determined that this Court is precluded from hearing Plaintiffs appeal of a ruling entered by a state court in a separate matter (R&R, Dkt 4 at 2, citing Exxon Mobile Corp. v. Saudi Basic Indus. Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284 (2005); Durham v. Haslam, 528 F. App x 559, 563 (6th Cir. 2013)). Plaintiffs object to the Magistrate Judge s recommendation, arguing that they do not seek to appeal the district court ruling or have the Court modify or reverse the district court decision; rather, Plaintiffs contend that they are filing this Complaint under the Fair Debt Collections Practices Act (FDCPA) and under U.S. Cont [sic], Art III Sec 2 cl. 1. Lack of Standing (Objs., Dkt 5 at 2-3). Plaintiffs current intentions notwithstanding, jurisdiction is decided at the onset of litigation. The relevant question is, whether on the face of a plaintiff s well-pleaded complaint, a state-law claim necessarily raise[s] a stated federal issue, actually disputed and substantial, which a federal forum may entertain without disturbing any congressionally approved balance of federal and state judicial responsibilities. Walbridge Aldinger Co. v. City of Detroit, 296 F. App x 527, 532 (6th Cir. 2008) (quoting Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng g & Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 315 (2005)). Jurisdiction may not be sustained on a theory that the plaintiff has not advanced. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc. v. Thompson, 478 U.S. 804, 809, n.6 (1986). Therefore, the Court agrees with the Magistrate Judge that the subject matter of the action Plaintiffs initiated is one over which this Court lacks jurisdiction or authority to hear. Plaintiffs objection must therefore be denied. Accordingly: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Objection (Dkt 5) is DENIED, and the Report and Recommendation (Dkt 4) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court. Dated: July 17, 2014 /s/ Janet T. Neff JANET T. NEFF United States District Judge 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.
