Springer v. Perryman et al (MAG+)

Filing 25

ORDER that plaintiff's 24 Objection is OVERRULED; that 23 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS is ADOPTED; that defendants' 5 , 13 , 15 , and 19 Motions to Dismiss are GRANTED; that an appropriate judgment will be entered. Signed by Honorable Judge Mark E. Fuller on 12/22/2011. (cc, )

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
EASTERN DIVISION
JACOB C. SPRINGER,
Plaintiff,
v.
STEVE PERRYMAN, et al.,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

CASE NO. 3:11-cv-936-MEF

ORDER
On November 30, 2011, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc. # 23)
that this Court grant Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. # 5, 13, 15, 19) and dismiss
Plaintiff’s Complaint (Doc. # 1) based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and issue
preclusion. Plaintiff has filed a timely Objection to the Recommendation. (Doc. # 24.) The
court reviews de novo the portion of the Recommendation to which the Objection applies.
28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1). For the reasons that follow, the Objection is due to be overruled and
the Recommendation adopted.
Plaintiff’s Objection is largely rambling, but does offer one teachable moment for the
Court regarding application of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. Towards the end of the
Objection, Plaintiff states that “[he] came to the Court of Last Resort in this District, which
is the United States District Court for the Middle District of Alabama.” (Obj. 5-6.) This
sentence betrays Plaintiff’s misunderstanding of our federal system. The lower federal courts
do not have appellate jurisdiction over the state courts. As stated by the Eleventh Circuit in
a previous attempt by Mr. Springer to obtain the same relief (which is also why issue

preclusion applies), “[t]he Rooker-Feldman doctrine provides that ‘lower federal courts are
precluded from exercising appellate jurisdiction over final state-court judgments.’” Springer
v. Perryman, 401 F. App’x 457, 458 (11th Cir. 2010) (quoting Nicholson v. Shafe, 558 F.3d
1266, 1270 (11th Cir. 2009)). Plaintiff’s claims are due to be dismissed without prejudice
for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. See Georgiacarry.org v. Toomer, 414 F. App’x 227,
228 (11th Cir. 2011).
Accordingly, it is ORDERED:
(1)

Plaintiff’s Objection (Doc. # 24) is OVERRULED;

(2)

The Magistrate Judge’s Recommendation (Doc. # 23) is ADOPTED; and

(3)

Defendants’ motions to dismiss (Docs. # 5, 13, 15, 19) are GRANTED.

An appropriate judgment will be entered.
DONE this the 22

nd

day of December, 2011.
/s/ Mark E. Fuller
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2