Ross v. Sanson

W.D. Arkansas

Ross v. Sanson

DecidedJanuary 11, 2023

Docket6:21-cv-06120

StatusUnknown

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

Bluebook

Ross v. Sanson, (W.D. Ark. 2023).

Pincite

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

SEAN SCOTT ROSS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:21-cv-06120

JODI SANSON, M.D. DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate and for Reconsideration. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff filed this Motion on December 19, 2022, and Defendant has responded and objects to this Motion. ECF No. 17. The Motion to Reinstate was referred to the undersigned for the purpose of making a recommendation on disposition. ECF No. 14. After consideration of this Motion, the Court finds it is without merit and recommends it be DENIED. In the present action, Plaintiff’s case, a medical negligence case, was dismissed without prejudice on October 6, 2021. ECF No. 12. In his order dismissing this action, the Honorable Robert T. Dawson dismissed Plaintiff’s case for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. As Judge Dawson noted, there is no diversity of citizenship in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because “both parties are citizens of Hot Springs, Arkansas.” Id. Based upon that finding, Judge Dawson determined “the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s complaint.” Id. Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, there has been no change in these facts. Plaintiff is still suing an individual Defendant domiciled in Arkansas. See ECF Nos. 13, 17. Thus, there is no diversity of citizenship. Accordingly, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s Petition to Reinstate and for Reconsideration (ECF No. 13) be DENIED. 1

1 This case was originally assigned to Honorable Robert T. Dawson. Since that time, Judge Dawson has retired, and this case has been reassigned to the Honorable Susan O. Hickey. The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). ENTERED this 11th day of January 2023. Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS HOT SPRINGS DIVISION

SEAN SCOTT ROSS PLAINTIFF

v. Civil No. 6:21-cv-06120

JODI SANSON, M.D. DEFENDANT

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF A UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Before the Court is Plaintiff’s Motion to Reinstate and for Reconsideration. ECF No. 13. Plaintiff filed this Motion on December 19, 2022, and Defendant has responded and objects to this Motion. ECF No. 17. The Motion to Reinstate was referred to the undersigned for the purpose of making a recommendation on disposition. ECF No. 14. After consideration of this Motion, the Court finds it is without merit and recommends it be DENIED. In the present action, Plaintiff’s case, a medical negligence case, was dismissed without prejudice on October 6, 2021. ECF No. 12. In his order dismissing this action, the Honorable Robert T. Dawson dismissed Plaintiff’s case for a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Id. As Judge Dawson noted, there is no diversity of citizenship in this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because “both parties are citizens of Hot Springs, Arkansas.” Id. Based upon that finding, Judge Dawson determined “the Court does not have jurisdiction to hear Plaintiff’s complaint.” Id. Upon review of Plaintiff’s Motion, there has been no change in these facts. Plaintiff is still suing an individual Defendant domiciled in Arkansas. See ECF Nos. 13, 17. Thus, there is no diversity of citizenship. Accordingly, the Court recommends Plaintiff’s Petition to Reinstate and for Reconsideration (ECF No. 13) be DENIED. 1

1 This case was originally assigned to Honorable Robert T. Dawson. Since that time, Judge Dawson has retired, and this case has been reassigned to the Honorable Susan O. Hickey. The Parties have fourteen (14) days from receipt of this Report and Recommendation in which to file written objections pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). The failure to file timely objections may result in waiver of the right to appeal questions of fact. The Parties are reminded that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de novo review by the

district court. See Thompson v. Nix, 897 F.2d 356, 357 (8th Cir. 1990). ENTERED this 11th day of January 2023. Barry A. Bryant /s/ HON. BARRY A. BRYANT UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

Ross v. Sanson, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ross-v-sanson-arwd-2023.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack