Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00218/USCOURTS-azd-4_10-cv-00218-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 430
Nature of Suit: Banks and Banking
Cause of Action: 28:1983 Civil Rights

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1 Plaintiff's Objection to the Recommendation fails to comply with Rule 72(b)(2), Fed. R.

Civ. P., which requires the Objection to include "specific written objections to the proposed findings

and recommendations." 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA

John H. Azeltine, Jr., 

Plaintiff, 

vs.

Bank of America, 

Defendant. 

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. CV 10-218-TUC-JGZ (HCE)

ORDER

 On December 16, 2011, the Honorable Hector C. Estrada, United States Magistrate

Judge, filed a Report and Recommendation (“Recommendation”), (Doc. 39), in this action

pursuant to Local Civil Rule 72.2. Rules of Practice of the U.S. District Court for the District

of Arizona. The Recommendation advised the Court to GRANT IN PART AND DENY IN

PART Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6).

 On December 30, 2011, Plaintiff filed his objections to the Recommendation. (Doc.

40.) Defendant responded to the Objections on January 13, 2012. (Doc. 41.) 

 Plaintiff’s Objection includes two cursory claims.1

 First, Plaintiff takes issue with the

Magistrate’s finding that the Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction, claiming that “the

Case 4:10-cv-00218-JGZ Document 42 Filed 02/10/12 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

Federal Court does have Subject Matter Jurisdiction over cases involving theft from U.S.

Bank Accounts, even when the Bank is involved.” (Doc. 40.) As stated in the

Recommendation, Plaintiff’s claim for “theft and conspiracy to commit fraud and

conversion” in violation of 15 U.S.C. § 1692, et seq. fails because the statute applies only to

“creditors,” ie. “entities that collect debts for third parties,” and the facts alleged in the

Complaint do not support Plaintiff’s claim that Defendant was attempting to collect a debt

in this case. (Doc. 39, pgs. 5-8.) 

 Second, Plaintiff challenges the Magistrate’s conclusion that Plaintiff has failed to

plead diversity jurisdiction because he has not alleged an amount in controversy in excess

of $75,000. Plaintiff claims that the Constitution does not require an amount in controversy;

however, Congress is authorized to set thresholds for the federal court’s subject matter

jurisdiction. See, e.g., Arbaugh v. Y&H Corp., 546 U.S. 500, 514-15 (2006). Plaintiff also

alleges that “neither the Defendant nor the Court can, in good faith, declare that the

Plaintiff’s breach NPPI could not be worth the $75,000 under U.S.C. 28 1332.” For the

reasons stated in the Recommendation, the Court agrees with the Magistrate that, upon the

face of Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint, it is obvious that Plaintiff’s suit cannot involve the

necessary amount. (Doc. 39, pgs. 12-15.)

 After a thorough and de novo review of the record and appropriate case law, the Court

disagrees with Plaintiff's objections to the Recommendation. The Court considers the

Recommendation (Doc. 39) to be thorough and well-reasoned and will ADOPT the

Recommendation of Magistrate Judge Estrada to dismiss this action and to deny an award

of attorneys’ fees.

 THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED THAT Magistrate Judge Estrada's Report and

Recommendation (Doc. 39) is ADOPTED.

//

//

//

 IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 33) is

Case 4:10-cv-00218-JGZ Document 42 Filed 02/10/12 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

GRANTED to the extent Defendant seeks dismissal of this action. This matter is

DISMISSED WITH PREJUDICE. The Clerk of the Court shall enter judgment and close

the file in this matter.

DATED this 10th day of February, 2012.

Case 4:10-cv-00218-JGZ Document 42 Filed 02/10/12 Page 3 of 3