Layne v. Sanders

E.D. Tennessee

Layne v. Sanders

DecidedDecember 4, 2023

Docket1:23-cv-00215

StatusUnknown

This text of Layne v. Sanders (Layne v. Sanders) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, E.D. Tennessee primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Layne v. Sanders, (E.D. Tenn. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

LAURA LAYNE, ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-215 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Travis R. McDonough v. ) ) Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger BRENDA MARIE SANDERS, ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is Magistrate Christopher H. Steger’s report and recommendation (Doc. 7), which recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff Laura Layne’s complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff filed the original complaint (Doc. 2) in this action on September 21, 2023, and contemporaneously filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, district courts must screen pro se complaints—even when the plaintiff is not a prisoner but seeks in forma pauperis status—and sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or name a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Baker v. Wayne Cnty. Fam. Indep. Agency, 75 F. App’x 501, 502 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The statute requires courts to dismiss in forma pauperis complaints that fail to state a claim[] and applies to complaints filed by non-prisoners as well as prisoners.” (citations omitted)). Therefore, Magistrate Judge Steger screened Plaintiff’s complaint in addition to considering her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On screening, Magistrate Judge Steger found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 7, at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff filed a one- sentence complaint which stated that “[s]he is my daughter and ya’ll are holding her against her will. Ya’ll have took her baby & cannot see her baby.” (Id. at 1.) Magistrate Judge Steger found that Plaintiff had not established federal question or diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff

has filed no objections to Magistrate Judge Steger’s report and recommendation and the time to do so has now passed. After reviewing the record, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Steger’s report and recommendation. The Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Steger’s report and recommendation (Doc. 7). This action SHALL be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE AT CHATTANOOGA

LAURA LAYNE, ) ) Case No. 1:23-cv-215 Plaintiff, ) ) Judge Travis R. McDonough v. ) ) Magistrate Judge Christopher H. Steger BRENDA MARIE SANDERS, ) ) Defendants. ) ) )

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER

Before the Court is Magistrate Christopher H. Steger’s report and recommendation (Doc. 7), which recommends that the Court dismiss Plaintiff Laura Layne’s complaint without prejudice. Plaintiff filed the original complaint (Doc. 2) in this action on September 21, 2023, and contemporaneously filed a motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis (Doc. 1). Under the Prison Litigation Reform Act, district courts must screen pro se complaints—even when the plaintiff is not a prisoner but seeks in forma pauperis status—and sua sponte dismiss any claims that are frivolous or malicious, fail to state a claim on which relief may be granted, or name a defendant who is immune. See 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); Baker v. Wayne Cnty. Fam. Indep. Agency, 75 F. App’x 501, 502 (6th Cir. 2003) (“The statute requires courts to dismiss in forma pauperis complaints that fail to state a claim[] and applies to complaints filed by non-prisoners as well as prisoners.” (citations omitted)). Therefore, Magistrate Judge Steger screened Plaintiff’s complaint in addition to considering her motion to proceed in forma pauperis. On screening, Magistrate Judge Steger found that Plaintiff’s complaint failed to establish that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction. (Doc. 7, at 2.) Specifically, Plaintiff filed a one- sentence complaint which stated that “[s]he is my daughter and ya’ll are holding her against her will. Ya’ll have took her baby & cannot see her baby.” (Id. at 1.) Magistrate Judge Steger found that Plaintiff had not established federal question or diversity jurisdiction. (Id. at 2.) Plaintiff

has filed no objections to Magistrate Judge Steger’s report and recommendation and the time to do so has now passed. After reviewing the record, the Court agrees with Magistrate Judge Steger’s report and recommendation. The Court hereby ACCEPTS and ADOPTS Magistrate Judge Steger’s report and recommendation (Doc. 7). This action SHALL be DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. AN APPROPRIATE JUDGMENT WILL ENTER. /s/ Travis R. McDonough TRAVIS R. MCDONOUGH UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Layne v. Sanders, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/layne-v-sanders-tned-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack