Sockness v. Coyle et al

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
AT GREENEVILLE
DYLAN LEE SOCKNESS, 	)
)
Plaintiff, 	)
)
v. 	) 	NO. 2:25-CV-137
)
JEREMIAH OWNE COYLE, JR., et al. 	)
)
Defendant. 	)
AMENDED REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
On August 27, 2025, Plaintiff filed a pro se Complaint [Doc. 2] and accompanying Motion
[Doc. 1] to proceed in forma pauperis. Shortly thereafter, Plaintiff filed a Motion for Appointment of
Counsel [Doc. 4] and an Amended Complaint. [Doc. 5]. Because Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time
of filing, the Court ordered Plaintiff to supplement his application with a certified inmate trust account
form. [Doc. 10]. Plaintiff filed the supplemental documentation [Docs. 12, 13] and a Motion requesting
that the United States Marshals serve Defendants with his Complaint. [Doc. 11]. On October 28, 2025,
the Court entered an Order and Report and Recommendation, granting Plaintiff’s request to proceed
in forma pauperis, denying his Motion to Appoint Counsel, recommending that his Complaint be
dismissed without prejudice for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and denying his Motion to Serve
by U.S. Marshals as moot. [Doc. 14].1 Plaintiff has now filed several Objections [Docs. 20, 21, 25] to
the Report and Recommendation,2 as well as an Amended Complaint [Doc. 24], a Motion to Accept
Amended Complaint [Doc. 23], and a Motion to Reconsider Serve [sic] by U.S. Marshals. [Doc. 22].
1 Plaintiff was incarcerated at the time he originally filed his Motion to proceed in forma pauperis but has since been
released. Based on the Plaintiff’s initial filings [Doc. 1] and supplements [Docs. 17, 19], Plaintiff continues to qualify
to proceed in forma pauperis.
2 While Plaintiff’s Objections were not timely filed, it is apparent from the record that he has had several changes of
address since filing his Complaint and given his pro se status, the undersigned recommends that Plaintiff be provided
with latitude as to the filing deadline.
Case 2:25-cv-00137-DCLC-CRW Document 27 Filed 12/11/25 Page 1 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

Given Plaintiff’s pro se status, the Court finds that the interests of justice will be served by the
undersigned considering Plaintiff’s recent filings and issuing an amended report and recommendation.
I. 	FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Plaintiff filed a Complaint [Doc. 2] on August 27, 2025, wherein he alleges that he entered into
a final settlement agreement with Jeremiah Owen Coyle, Jr. and his sister, Annmarie Coyle, in which
they agreed to convey him their property located at 19401 Sunnyside Road, in Philadelphia, Tennessee.
Additionally, Plaintiff alleges that Defendants agreed to pay him $900.00 per month for two years
beginning on August 3, 2025. Plaintiff states that as of August 17, 2025, he had not received any of
the money as promised. Id. Plaintiff alleges that he sent Defendants a postcard from the Monroe County
Jail in Tennessee before the initial payment was due, but because he was incarcerated in Waushara
County Jail in Wisconsin, he had asked his brother to follow up with Defendants. Id. According to the
Complaint, Defendants are not responding to any attempted contact. While Plaintiff does not clearly
allege in the facts set forth in his Complaint that Defendants failed to provide him with a deed to the
property addressed in the agreement, he does request that Defendants be required to transfer the
property to him as a part of the relief he requests, indicating to the Court that he does contend that he
has not received the deed.
Plaintiff then filed an Amended Complaint [Doc. 5], which was substantially similar to his
original Complaint, along with a copy of the referenced Settlement Agreement (“Agreement”) [Doc.
7]. The Agreement confirms that the property at issue is located within the Eastern District of
Tennessee. The contract reflects that as of the date it was signed all parties were residing at the same
address, specifically at 554 Hawkins Road, Sweetwater, Tennessee. The agreement reflects that it was
signed on July 17, 2025, and the parties’ signatures are notarized. [Doc. 7].
The undersigned then issued a Report and Recommendation recommending that Plaintiff’s
Complaint be dismissed without prejudice because the facts alleged did not set forth a federal question,
Case 2:25-cv-00137-DCLC-CRW Document 27 Filed 12/11/25 Page 2 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

and Defendant had failed to establish that the Court had diversity jurisdiction. After the Report and
Recommendation was issued, Plaintiff filed a second Amended Complaint [Doc. 24] wherein he set
forth additional facts in support of his contention that the Court had diversity jurisdiction over his
claims. Plaintiff alleges that as of November 24, 2025, he has still not received any payments pursuant
to the Settlement Agreement. Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint also states that the property at issue is
valued at $147,000.00 and then avers that between the value of the property and the $21,600.00 that
Defendants owe to him the total amount at stake is $168,600.00. Id. Additionally, Plaintiff notes in his
Amended Complaint and two of the objections he filed to the undersigned’s previously issued Report
and Recommendation that he currently resides in Wautoma, Wisconsin, does not have a Tennessee
I.D., and has lived in Wisconsin his entire life aside from a finite timeframe when he lived in Tennessee
with his girlfriend. [Docs. 20, 21, 25].3
Given the further factual development Plaintiff has provided, the Court finds that Plaintiff has
now provided a basis for the Court to assume jurisdiction over his claims on a diversity basis, pursuant
to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.4 See Limbright v. Hofmeister, 566 F.3d 672 (6th Cir.2009); see also Colyer v.
Traveler's Ins. Co., 525 F. App'x 308 (6th Cir.2013). On the face of his second Amended Complaint,
Plaintiff has established that he and Defendants are residents of different states, that the events
underlying his Complaint and the real property at issue are located within the Eastern District of
Tennessee, and that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold. Additionally, the
facts set forth in Plaintiff’s second Amended Complaint demonstrate that the cause of action he asserts
3 Additionally, Plaintiff is on probation in Wisconsin and provided his probation officer’s name to confirm his domicile
if needed.
4 “Existence of diversity jurisdiction is determined by the citizenship of the parties at the time of the filing of the
complaint, not at the time the cause of action arose or after the action is commenced.” Mann v. City of Tucson, Dep't
of Police, 782 F.2d 790, 794 (9th Cir. 1986) (citing Smith v. Sperling, 354 U.S. 91, 93 n. 1, 77 S.Ct. 1112, 1113 n. 1,
1 L.Ed.2d 1205 (1957)).
Case 2:25-cv-00137-DCLC-CRW Document 27 Filed 12/11/25 Page 3 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>

is not clearly frivolous, especially when the second Amended Complaint is considered in conjunction
with the Settlement Agreement that Plaintiff has filed into the record of the Court.
II. 	CONCLUSION
For the reasons set forth above, the undersigned RECOMMENDS that the undersigned’s
previously issued Report and Recommendation [Doc. 14] be WITHDRAWN, that Plaintiff’s
objections be DENIED as moot, that Plaintiff Motion to Accept Amended Complaint [Doc. 23] be
GRANTED, and that Plaintiff be permitted to proceed in this matter on his second Amended
Complaint [Doc. 24] because it sets forth a colorable claim over which the Court has diversity
jurisdiction, and that Plaintiff’s Motion to Reconsider Serve by U.S. Marshals. [Doc. 22] be
GRANTED.
This 	matter 	is 	to 	be 	presented 	to 	the 	District 	Judge 	pursuant 	to 	this 	Report 	and
Recommendation under the authority of Gibson v. R.G. Smith Co., 195 F.2d at 263, wherein the Court
states that such matters proceed automatically to a district judge for examination of the complaint after
a magistrate judge has granted the petition to proceed in forma pauperis.5
Respectfully submitted,
/s/Cynthia Richardson Wyrick
United States Magistrate Judge
5 Objections to this Report and Recommendation must be filed within 14 days after service of this recommended
disposition on the objecting party. 28 U.S.C. 636(b)(1); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b)(2). Such objections must conform to the
requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b). Failure to file objections within the time specified waives the right to appeal
the District Court’s order. Thomas v. Arn, 474 U.S. 140 (1985). The district court need not provide de novo review
where objections to this report and recommendation are frivolous, conclusive or general. Mira v. Marshall, 806 F.2d
636 (6th Cir. 1986). Only specific objections are reserved for appellate review. Smith v. Detroit Federation of
Teachers, 829 F.2d 1370 (6th Cir. 1987).
Case 2:25-cv-00137-DCLC-CRW Document 27 Filed 12/11/25 Page 4 of 4 PageID
#: <pageID>