Ledford v. Ledford et al, No. 1:2020cv00170 - Document 27 (W.D.N.C. 2021)
Court Description: MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER that the Plaintiff's 25 Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation are OVERRULED; the 24 Memorandum and Recommendation is ACCEPTED as stated; and the Defendants' 15 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED. The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Plaintiff's 26 Motion to Remove Defendant Jason Ledford is DENIED. Plaintiff's 17 "Motion to Respond to Order and Request for Jury Trial" is DENIED AS MOOT. The Plaintiff's 21 Motion to Request a Jury Trial is DENIED AS MOOT. Signed by Chief Judge Martin Reidinger on 7/19/2021. (kby)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Ledford v. Ledford et al Doc. 27 THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA ASHEVILLE DIVISION CIVIL CASE NO. 1:20-cv-00170-MR APRIL LEDFORD, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) WILLIAM LEDFORD, JASON ) LEDFORD, DAMIN LEDFORD, and ) JARIN LEDFORD, ) ) Defendants. ) ________________________________ ) THIS MATTER is before the MEMORANDUM OF DECISION AND ORDER Court on the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15]; the Magistrate Judge’s Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 24] regarding the disposition of that Motion; the Plaintiff’s Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 25]; the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove Defendant Jason Ledford [Doc. 26]; the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Respond to Order and Request for Jury Trial” [Doc. 17]; and the “Plaintiff’s Motion to Request a Jury Trial” [Doc. 21]. I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b) and a specific Order of referral of the District Court, the Honorable David S. Cayer, United States Magistrate Case 1:20-cv-00170-MR-DSC Document 27 Filed 07/20/21 Page 1 of 7 Dockets.Justia.com Judge, was designated to consider the Defendants' Motion to Dismiss and to submit a recommendation for its disposition. On May 19, 2021, the Magistrate Judge filed a Memorandum and Recommendation recommending that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss be granted and the Complaint be dismissed without prejudice. [Doc. 24]. Specifically, Judge Cayer recommended that the Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss be granted and the claims dismissed based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and on the tribal exhaustion doctrine. [Id. at 4-7]. Judge Cayer also recommended that the Motion to Dismiss based on insufficient service of process be denied. [Id. at 3]. The parties were advised that any objections to the Magistrate Judge's Memorandum and Recommendation were to be filed in writing within fourteen (14) days of service. The Plaintiff timely filed her Objection on June 2, 2021. [Doc. 25]. Also on June 2, 2021, the Plaintiff filed her Motion to Remove Defendant Jason Ledford. [Doc. 26]. The Defendants did not respond to either the Objection or the Motion to Remove Defendant Jason Ledford. II. STANDARD OF REVIEW The Federal Magistrate Act requires a district court to “make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specific proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). In 2 Case 1:20-cv-00170-MR-DSC Document 27 Filed 07/20/21 Page 2 of 7 order “to preserve for appeal an issue in a magistrate judge’s report, a party must object to the finding or recommendation on that issue with sufficient specificity so as reasonably to alert the district court of the true ground for the objection.” United States v. Midgette, 478 F.3d 616, 622 (4th Cir. 2007). Merely reiterating the same arguments made in the pleading submitted to the Magistrate Judge does not warrant de novo review. Veney v. Astrue, 539 F. Supp. 2d 841, 846 (W.D.Va. 2008). The Court is not required to review, under a de novo or any other standard, the factual findings or legal conclusions of the magistrate judge to which no objections have been raised. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Additionally, the Court need not conduct a de novo review where a party makes only “general and conclusory objections that do not direct the court to a specific error in the magistrate's proposed findings and recommendations.” Orpiano v. Johnson, 687 F.2d 44, 47 (4th Cir. 1982). III. DISCUSSION A. Plaintiff’s Objections Recommendation to the Memorandum and The Plaintiff’s Objections consist primarily of general assertions and statements of “facts” unsupported by any citations to the record. The Plaintiff's filing does not identify any specific error in the Magistrate Judge's proposed conclusions of law. Such “objections” do not warrant a de novo 3 Case 1:20-cv-00170-MR-DSC Document 27 Filed 07/20/21 Page 3 of 7 review of the Magistrate Judge's reasoning. Orpiano, 687 F.2d at 47; see also Aldrich v. Bock, 327 F. Supp. 2d 743, 747 (E.D. Mich. 2004) (“A general objection, or one that merely restates the arguments previously presented is not sufficient to alert the court to alleged errors on the part of the magistrate judge. An 'objection' that does nothing more than state a disagreement with a magistrate's suggested resolution, or simply summarizes what has been presented before, is not an 'objection' as that term is used in this context.”). After a careful review of the Memorandum and Recommendation, the Court concludes that the Magistrate Judge's proposed conclusions of law regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the tribal exhaustion doctrine are correct and are consistent with current case law. Accordingly, the Court hereby accepts the Magistrate Judge's recommendation that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted on the grounds of lack of subject matter jurisdiction and on the tribal exhaustion doctrine. Given that the Court will dismiss this action without prejudice based on lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the tribal exhaustion doctrine the Court does not reach the question of whether there was adequate service of process. Stop Reckless Econ. Instability Caused by Democrats v. Fed. Election Comm'n, 814 F.3d 221, 228 (4th Cir. 2016) (quoting Ex parte McCardle, 74 U.S. 506, 514, 19 L. Ed. 264 (1868)) (“Without jurisdiction the 4 Case 1:20-cv-00170-MR-DSC Document 27 Filed 07/20/21 Page 4 of 7 court cannot proceed at all in any cause. Jurisdiction is power to declare the law, and when it ceases to exist, the only function remaining to the court is that of announcing the fact and dismissing the cause.”). B. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove Defendant Ledford Contemporaneously with the filing of her objections, the Plaintiff filed a Motion to Remove Defendant Jason Ledford as a defendant in order to create diversity jurisdiction. The Court interprets this as a motion to amend the complaint. Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure Rule 15, “leave [to amend a complaint] shall be freely given when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P.15(a). Such leave “should be denied only when the amendment would be prejudicial to the opposing party, there has been bad faith on the part of the moving party, or the amendment would be futile.” Edwards v. City of Goldsboro, 178 F.3d 231, 242 (4th Cir. 1999) (internal citation omitted) (emphasis in original). In this instance, because the Court accepts the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss should be granted due to the tribal exhaustion doctrine, the Plaintiff’s motion to amend in order to create diversity jurisdiction would be futile. The Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove Defendant Jason Ledford, [Doc. 26], is, therefore, denied. 5 Case 1:20-cv-00170-MR-DSC Document 27 Filed 07/20/21 Page 5 of 7 C. The Plaintiff’s Remaining Motions Also pending are the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Respond to Order and Request for Jury Trial” [Doc. 17] and the Plaintiff’s Motion to Request a Jury Trial [Doc. 21]. Given that the Court has accepted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation that the case be dismissed without prejudice, these Motions are denied as moot. See Stop Reckless Econ. Instability Caused by Democrats, 814 F.3d at 228 (4th Cir. 2016). ORDER IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED, that the Plaintiff’s Objections to the Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 25] are OVERRULED; the Memorandum and Recommendation [Doc. 24] is ACCEPTED as stated; and the Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss [Doc. 15] is GRANTED. The Complaint is hereby DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Remove Defendant Jason Ledford [Doc. 26] is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s “Motion to Respond to Order and Request for Jury Trial” [Doc. 17] is DENIED AS MOOT. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Plaintiff’s Motion to Request a Jury Trial [Doc. 21] is DENIED AS MOOT. 6 Case 1:20-cv-00170-MR-DSC Document 27 Filed 07/20/21 Page 6 of 7 The Clerk of Court is respectfully directed to terminate this civil action. IT IS SO ORDERED. Signed: July 19, 2021 7 Case 1:20-cv-00170-MR-DSC Document 27 Filed 07/20/21 Page 7 of 7
]]>
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.
