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, )

Download PDF
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

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?