WILLIAM STOCKS, Bankruptcy Judge
The matter before the court is a motion filed by the Debtor on February 5, 2008, entitled "The Debtor's Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) for Determination That Proceeding Is Not a `Core' Proceeding" ("Motion"). The Motion was accompanied by a document entitled "Memorandum of Law in Support of The Debtor's Motion Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(3) for Determination That Proceeding Is Not a Core Proceeding" ("Memorandum"). The Motion seeks a determination that this case is not a core proceeding and that the court therefore lacks subject matter jurisdiction. From a review of the Motion and Memorandum, it is apparent as a matter of law that the Motion is without merit and should be denied. Further, having reviewed the Motion and Memorandum, including the exhibits attached to the Memorandum, and having considered the arguments submitted by the Debtor in support of the Motion on February 5, 2008, when another of Debtor's motions in this case was heard, the court is satisfied that a further hearing is not needed and the court therefore dispenses with any further hearing.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1334, federal district courts have "original and exclusive jurisdiction of all cases under title 11" and "original but not exclusive jurisdiction of all civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11." Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 157(a), the district court "may provide that any or all cases under title 11 and any or all proceedings arising under title 11 or arising in or related to a case under title 11 shall be referred to the bankruptcy judges for the district." The United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina provided for such a referral to this court by a referral order that was entered in the District Court on August 15, 1984. Under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b)(1), upon referral from the district court, bankruptcy judges "may hear and determine all cases under title 11 and all core proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in a case under title 11, referred under subsection (a) of this section, and may enter appropriate orders and judgments, subject to review under section 158 of this title."
On September 27, 2001, the Debtor filed a voluntary petition in this court seeking relief under chapter 7 of title 11 of the United States Code. As a result of the Debtor filing the chapter 7 petition and voluntarily invoking the jurisdiction of this court, a case under title 11 was commenced, to wit, this chapter 7 case. There is no basis for Debtor's characterization of this case as "a pre-petition breach-of-contract action" which should be treated as a "related to" proceeding and not subject to the jurisdiction of the bankruptcy court. It is unmistakable from the record that this chapter 7 case is a case under title 11 which this court has jurisdiction to hear and determine. Debtor's fixation on whether a "core proceeding" is present is misplaced. While there is a distinction in 28 U.S.C. § 1334 between a "case under title 11" and "civil proceedings arising under title 11, or arising in or related to cases under title 11", such distinction does not mean, as Debtor seems to assume, that the bankruptcy court's jurisdiction over a case under title 11 depends upon the presence of a core proceeding or would not exist because a case under title 11 is not a core proceeding. There is no such requirement under 28 U.S.C. §§ 157 and 1334 and no legal basis for the relief sought by the Debtor in the Motion and Memorandum. Accordingly, the Motion shall be and hereby is DENIED.