Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03064/USCOURTS-arwd-3_06-cv-03064-3/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Aguirre
Defendant
Sebastian Aguirre
Plaintiff
Loretta Goodman
Defendant
Sebastian Benjamin Valdez Goodman
Plaintiff
Osban
Defendant
Sebastian Osban
Plaintiff
Fabian Marc Valdez
Plaintiff

Document Text:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

WESTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS

HARRISON DIVISION

FABIAN MARC VALDEZ, in his own 

right and on behalf of, SEBASTIAN

BENJAMIN VALDEZ GOODMAN, 

a/k/a SEBASTIAN AGUIRRE, a/k/a

SEBASTIAN OSBAN PLAINTIFFS

v. Civil No. 06-3064

LORETTA GOODMAN,

a/k/a AGUIRRE, a/k/a OSBAN DEFENDANT

ORDER

NOW on this 13th day of November 2006, comes on for

consideration the Amended Report and Recommendation of the

Magistrate Judge (the “Amended R&R” -- document #5), filed on

October 18, 2006, and the Court, being well and sufficiently

advised, finds and orders as follows with respect to the same:

1. In the Amended R&R, the Magistrate Judge advised the

plaintiff, Fabian Marc Valdez (“Valdez”) that he had ten days from

his receipt of the October 18, 2006, order in which to file

written objections thereto. The Order also reminded Valdez “. .

. that objections must be both timely and specific to trigger de

novo review by the district court.”

2. Neither the file nor the electronic court records

indicate when Valdez may have received the Court’s Order of

October 18, 2006. However, on November 6, 2006 -- some nineteen

days after the date of the Magistrate Judge’s Order -- Valdez

filed a pleading herein entitled “Opposition To Amended Report And

Recommendations” (Document #6). There is no indication that

Case 3:06-cv-03064-JLH Document 7 Filed 11/13/06 Page 1 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
2–

Document #6 was made available to the respondent.

Despite the reminder in the Amended R&R, Valdez’s pleading

does not state any specific objection to the Amended R&R -- in

fact, it states no objections at all. Instead, it requests that

Valdez “. . . be awarded an additional thirty (30) days to amend

his original complaint to conform to the jurisdictional issues

raised by the court in its Report and Recommendation dated October

18, 2006.” The pleading goes on to outline Valdez’s intentions as

to “framing” his cause(s) of action in an amended complaint. 

3. The tenor of Valdez’s pleading (Document #6) suggests not

that he believes the Amended R&R is incorrect but, rather, that he

knows it is correct and that if he is to be permitted to proceed

he will have to totally revamp and re-tool his complaint. 

The Court believes that the Amended R&R is correct and sound

both as to law and fact. Accordingly, in the absence of any

objection to it, the Amended R&R must be adopted and ordered

implemented.

4. Since the correct conclusion of the Amended R&R is that

the Court has no jurisdiction over it as drawn, the Court lacks

the authority to order or permit the complaint to be amended.

IT IS, THEREFORE, ORDERED that the Amended Report and

Recommendation be, and it hereby is, approved, adopted and ordered

implemented.

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Valdez’s complaint be, and it

Case 3:06-cv-03064-JLH Document 7 Filed 11/13/06 Page 2 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>
3–

hereby is, ordered dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

/s/ Jimm Larry Hendren

JIMM LARRY HENDREN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:06-cv-03064-JLH Document 7 Filed 11/13/06 Page 3 of 3 PageID #: <pageID>