matter jurisdiction to try or liquidate Plaintiffs personal injury claims against either the bankruptcy estate or Defendant under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(5).”); Gary Brew Enterprises, 198 B.R. at 620 (“The filing of the Proof of Claim cannot be tantamount to consent where Congress has explicitly restricted this Court’s jurisdiction in § 157(b)(2)(B) and (5).”); Boyer, 93 B.R. at 318 (“[T]he Court, lacking subject matter jurisdiction, must dismiss the instant adversary proceeding.”). This Court agrees with the majority position and finds that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs’ defamation claims. Because this Court is without jurisdiction to hear the defamation claims, it cannot hear the motion for summary judgment concerning such claims. See Moore, 358 B.R. at 252 (<HOLDING>); Patterson, 153 B.R. at 33 (“[T]he bankruptcy
holding that claims under 42 usc  1983 are not personal injury tort claims holding that district court should retain control over all aspects of personal injury tort claims including the resolution of pretrial motions holding that age discrimination is not a personal injury tort holding that sexual harassment is a personal injury tort holding that the united states court of federal claims lacks jurisdiction over claims sounding in tort including fraud