PennyMac Loan Services, LLC v. Sutton

Opinion

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NORTHEASTERN DIVISION

PENNYMAC LOAN SERVICES, LLC, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) No. 2:24-cv-00014 ) JOEL AARON SUTTON and TERRY ) MELISSA SUTTON, ) ) Defendants. )

ORDER Before the Court is a Report and Recommendation (“R&R”) (Doc. No. 28) from the Magistrate Judge to which no objections have been filed. The R&R recommends that the Court grant Plaintiff PennyMac Loan Services, LLC (“PennyMac”) motion to remand (Doc. No. 12). Because neither party objected to the R&R within 14 days of service, the Court is not required to review the R&R. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140, 150 (1985). Nevertheless, the Court has reviewed the R&R and agrees with the Magistrate Judge’s finding and conclusions. Specifically, the Court agrees that Defendants Joel and Terry Sutton have failed to meet their burden as the removing party to show that the Court has jurisdiction over their claims. (Doc. No. 28 at 12). Accordingly, the R&R (Doc. No. 28) is APPROVED AND ADOPTED, PennyMac’s Motion to Remand (Doc. No. 12) is GRANTED, and any remaining pending motions are DENIED AS MOOT based on the lack of jurisdiction. Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Env’t, 523 U.S. 83 (1998) (“Without jurisdiction the court cannot proceed at all in any cause.”) (citing Ex parte McCardle, 7 Wall. 506, 514, 19 L.Ed. 264 (1868)). The Clerk shall return this case to the General Session Court of Macon County, Tennessee and close the file. IT IS SO ORDERED.

WAVERLY 4 FRENSHAW. JR. UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE