Moultrie v. Blankinship, 2:11-cv-01097

Plaintiffs Harold G. Moultrie and Dolly Moultrie filed a pro se civil action in the District of South Carolina.
Defendants include Vanderbilt Mortgage, North Charleston Planning Board, Charleston Planning Board, and several named individuals/entities.
The case was referred to Magistrate Judge Bruce Howe Hendricks for pre-trial proceedings and a Report and Recommendation.
Magistrate Judge Hendricks recommended dismissal of the complaint without prejudice and without service of process.
The Court conducted a de novo review and found no subject-matter jurisdiction due to lack of diversity and absence of a federal question.
The Court adopted the Magistrate Judge’s recommendation and dismissed the case without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the court has subject-matter jurisdiction	Moultrie asserts federal jurisdiction exists.	Defendants contend no federal jurisdiction due to non-diversity and lack of federal questions.	No jurisdiction; case dismissed.
Whether the action should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction	Plaintiffs maintain claims arise under federal law.	Lack of complete diversity and absence of federal question require dismissal.	Dismissal without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.
Whether state-law claims require state-court adjudication	Claims include contract and legal malpractice under state law.	Regarded as state-law issues, not intruding federal jurisdiction.	Court lacks jurisdiction; state-law claims fall to state courts.

Mathews v. Weber, 423 U.S. 261 (1976) (de novo review of magistrate's recommendations; standard of review)
Camby v. Davis, 718 F.2d 198 (4th Cir. 1983) (absence of explanation required when no objections to report)
Tigrett v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 290 F.3d 620 (4th Cir. 2002) (dismissal of state-law claims where no federal claims remain)