Nails v. Huntington Bank, No. 2:2021cv04231 - Document 4 (S.D. Ohio 2021)
Court Description: OPINION and ORDER adopting 2 the Report and Recommendation. Signed by Judge Michael H. Watson on 9/21/2021. (jk) (This document has been sent by regular mail to the party(ies) listed in the NEF that did not receive electronic notification.)
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
Nails v. Huntington Bank Doc. 4 Case: 2:21-cv-04231-MHW-CMV Doc #: 4 Filed: 09/21/21 Page: 1 of 3 PAGEID #: 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO EASTERN DIVISION Angela Nails, Plaintiff, Case No.2:21-cv-4231 V. Judge Michaei H. Watson Huntington Bank, Magistrate Judge Vascura Defendant. OPINION AND ORDER On August 31, 2021, Magistrate Judge Vascura Issued an Order and Report and Recommendation ("R&R") regarding the Compiaint filed by Angela Nails ("Plaintiff'). R&R, EOF No. 2. Magistrate Judge Vascura recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiffs action for lack of subject matter Jurisdiction. R&R, EOF No. 2. Plaintiff objects to Magistrate Judge Vascura's findings regarding subject matter jurisdiction. EOF No. 3. For the following reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, ADOPTS the R&R, and DISMISSES WITHOUT PREJUDICE Plaintiffs action. I. ANALYSIS Magistrate Judge Vascura recommended the Court dismiss Plaintiffs claim on the grounds that "Plaintiff has not identified any federal statutory or constitutional provision under which her claims arise, and because Plaintiff has failed to plausibly allege facts upon which this Court could rely to conclude that the requisite amount in controversy is satisfied." R&R 4, ECF No. 2. Dockets.Justia.com Case: 2:21-cv-04231-MHW-CMV Doc #: 4 Filed: 09/21/21 Page: 2 of 3 PAGEID #: 20 Plaintiff objects to this recommendation and reiterates that she "believes the court has Subject Jurisdiction for damages in cases of injury." Obj. 1, ECF No. 3. The Court does not have generai jurisdiction over aii cases invoiving injury. As outiined aptiy in Magistrate Judge Vascura's R&R: "The basic statutory grants of federai court subject-matter jurisdiction are contained in 28 U.S.C.§ 1331, which provides for '[fjederai- question'jurisdiction, and § 1332, which provides for '[djiversity of citizenship'jurisdiction." Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 501 (2006). Federai-question jurisdiction is invoked when a piaintiff pieads a claim "arising under" the federai iaws or the United States Constitution, id.(citation omitted). For a federai court to have diversity jurisdiction pursuant to § 1332(a), there must be compiete diversity, which means that each piaintiff must be a citizen of a different state than each defendant, and the amount in controversy must exceed $75,000. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Lewis, 519 U.S. 61,68 (1996). R &R 2, ECF No. 2. Although Piaintiff does include details in her objection that were not contained within her Compiaint, even if the Court were to interpret those additions as if they had been inciuded in the Compiaint, they do not estabiish that jurisdiction exists. Piaintiff points to no federai question that is invoked. Additionaiiy, Piaintiff does not expiain how her damages exceed $75,000. She argues that she has suffered from a mentai reiapse and mentai injury as a resuit of her checking account being dosed by Defendant. Obj. 1, ECF No. 3. Piaintiff says that she must "seifmedicate herself with exercises treatment to help the Plaintiff to iive her daiiy iife in her own home." Id. Piaintiff aiso points to "not being abie to Case No. 2:21-cv-4231 Page 2 of 3 Case: 2:21-cv-04231-MHW-CMV Doc #: 4 Filed: 09/21/21 Page: 3 of 3 PAGEID #: 21 use the Plaintiff deposited account and another 1 year after the two accounts were closed." Id. Plaintiff states that she Is "seek[ing] medical assistance from a professional medical health person" as damages. Id. at 2. Even considering these allegations, Plaintiff has not sufficiently provided factual allegations supporting her claim of damages, and it is not clear how the damages could exceed $75,000. Having reviewed Magistrate Judge Vascura's R&R, the Court arrives at the same result: this claim must be dismissed for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. II. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, the Court OVERRULES Plaintiffs objections, ECF No. 3, and ADOPTS the R&R, ECF No. 2. As such. Plaintiffs claim is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE to her filing claims in state court. IT IS SO ORDERED. MICHAEL H. WATSON,JUDGE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Case No. 2:21-cv-4231 Page 3 of 3
]]>
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.
