United States District Court, S.D. Mississippi, Southern Division
ORDER OVERRULING PLAINTIFFS' OBJECTION ,
ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S  REPORT AND
RECOMMENDATION, AND DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' CLAIMS WITHOUT
SULEYMAN OZERDEN UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
matter comes before the Court on the Report and
Recommendation  of United States Magistrate Judge John C.
Gargiulo, entered in this case on May 15, 2017. After the
Magistrate Judge conducted a screening hearing on March 9,
2017, based upon his review of the record and relevant legal
authority, the Magistrate Judge recommended that
Plaintiffs' claims be dismissed without prejudice for
lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. R. & R.  at 6.
Plaintiffs have filed what has been docketed as an Objection
 to the Report and Recommendation and have filed various
other documents since entry of the Report and Recommendation.
thoroughly reviewing Plaintiffs' Objection  and other
filings, the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
, the record, and relevant legal authority, the Court
finds that Plaintiffs' Objection  should be overruled
and that the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
 should be adopted as the finding of the Court.
Plaintiffs' claims will be dismissed without prejudice
for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.
Dale Sims (“Ms. Sims”) and Shamis Sims
(“Mr. Sims”) filed a pro se Complaint  in this
Court on January 27, 2017, naming Howard T. Linden
(“Mr. Linden”) as the sole Defendant. Compl. 
at 1. Ms. Sims signed the Complaint, but Mr. Sims did not.
to the Complaint, Mr. Linden is an attorney in Michigan who
allegedly performed legal work on behalf of Mr. Sims' or
Mr. Sims' father's estate. Plaintiffs assert claims
related to certain actions taken by Mr. Linden regarding
monies Mr. Sims received through his father's estate and
a trust fund, which apparently expired when Mr. Sims turned
18. Id. at 4. Mr. Sims is now 37 years old.
See Mr. Sims' Letter  at 1. The Complaint
appears to raise state-law claims related to Mr. Linden's
legal work and actions taken during the 1990s. Based upon the
record, both Mr. Sims and Mr. Linden appear to be citizens of
Michigan. See, e.g., Compl.  at 3; Attachment
 at 1; Am. Mot.  at 5.
March 9, 2017, the Magistrate Judge conducted a screening
hearing. See Mar. 9, 2017, Minute Entry. While Mr.
Sims did not appear at the hearing due to his incarceration
in Michigan, Ms. Sims testified at the hearing that both Mr.
Linden and Mr. Sims are citizens of Michigan. R. & R.
 at 4.
Standard of Review
no party has objected to the Magistrate Judge's Report
and Recommendation, the Court need not conduct a de novo
review of it. 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1) (“a judge of
the court shall make a de novo determination of those
portions of the report or specified proposed findings and
recommendations to which objection is made”). In such
cases, the Court applies the “clearly erroneous, abuse
of discretion and contrary to law” standard of review.
United States v. Wilson, 864 F.2d 1219, 1221 (5th
Plaintiffs have filed what has been docketed as a written
Objection  to the Magistrate Judge's Report and
Recommendation, the Court “make[s] a de novo
determination of those portions of the report or specified
proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is
made.” 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). “Such review
means that this Court will examine the entire record and will
make an independent assessment of the law.” Lambert
v. Denmark, Civil No. 2:12-cv-74-KS-MTP, 2013 WL 786356,
*1 (S.D.Miss. Mar. 1, 2013). In conducting a de novo review,
the Court is not “required to reiterate the findings
and conclusions of the magistrate judge.” Koetting
v. Thompson, 995 F.2d 37, 40 (5th Cir. 1993).
The Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
should be adopted.
have not submitted any evidence to contradict the Magistrate
Judge's finding that complete diversity of citizenship is
lacking, nor do they argue that there is complete diversity
of citizenship. Instead, Plaintiffs' filings since the
entry of the Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation
appear to focus upon the amount in controversy requirement of
28 U.S.C. § 1332(a). See, e.g., Documents ,
no objection was made as to the lack-of-diversity finding,
the Court need not conduct a de novo review of that finding.
See Wilson, 864 F.2d at 1221. However, even under a
de novo review, the Court concludes that the Magistrate
Judge's finding that the parties are not completely
diverse is supported by the record. The Court concludes that
Mr. Sims and Mr. Linden are both citizens of Michigan.
Complete diversity of citizenship is lacking, and Plaintiffs
have not stated a federal claim. The Court will adopt the
Magistrate Judge's Report and Recommendation  as the