Williamson
v.
First Nat'l Bank

This case is not covered by Casetext's citator
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEBRASKAJan 8, 2013
8:12CV281 (D. Neb. Jan. 8, 2013)

8:12CV281

01-08-2013

MARGARET AVIS WILLIAMSON, Plaintiff, v. FIRST NATIONAL BANK, BRETT FULMER, and VELMA SCURLOCK, Defendants.


MEMORANDUM

AND ORDER

This matter is before the court on its own motion. On October 10, 2012, the court conducted an initial review of Plaintiff's Complaint. (Filing No. 6.) The court determined that Plaintiff had failed to establish diversity of citizenship jurisdiction or federal question jurisdiction as a basis of jurisdiction in this matter. On the court's own motion, it gave Plaintiff 30 days in which to amend her Complaint in order to clearly set forth the basis for this court's jurisdiction. ( Id. at CM/ECF p. 3.)

Plaintiff filed an Amended Complaint on November 8, 2012. In her Amended Complaint, Plaintiff merely expands on the allegations of her previous complaint, but makes no attempt to set forth the basis for this court's jurisdiction. (Filing No. 7.)

The court gave Plaintiff the opportunity to show that subject matter jurisdiction in this court is proper, but Plaintiff has not done so. For this reason, and for the reasons set forth in the court's October 10, 2012, Memorandum and Order, this matter is dismissed.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that:

1. This matter is dismissed without prejudice because this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction.

2. A separate judgment will be entered in accordance with this Memorandum and Order.

BY THE COURT:

Richard G. Kopf


Senior United States District Judge


*This opinion may contain hyperlinks to other documents or Web sites. The U.S. District Court for the District of Nebraska does not endorse, recommend, approve, or guarantee any third parties or the services or products they provide on their Web sites. Likewise, the court has no agreements with any of these third parties or their Web sites. The court accepts no responsibility for the availability or functionality of any hyperlink. Thus, the fact that a hyperlink ceases to work or directs the user to some other site does not affect the opinion of the court.