Springer v. Perryman et al(JOINT ASSIGN)(MAG+)
ORDER directing as follows: (1) plf's 17 Objection to Report and Recommendations is OVERRULED; (2) the 15 REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION of the Magistrate Judge is ADOPTED to the extent that it recommends dismissal of this action for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine; (3) defs' 9 Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED; adopting Report and Recommendations re 15 Report and Recommendations.; (4) this case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction; further ORDERING that plf's 16 Motion to Compel is DENIED. Signed by Chief Judge William Keith Watkins on 4/5/16. (djy, )
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
JACOB C. SPRINGER,
STEVE PERRYMAN, et al.,
CASE NO. 3:15-CV-633-WKW
On February 25, 2016, the Magistrate Judge filed a Recommendation (Doc.
# 15) to which Plaintiff timely filed an objection (Doc. # 17). The court has
conducted an independent and de novo review of those portions of the
Recommendation to which objection is made, see 28 U.S.C. § 636(b), and finds that
the objection is without merit.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED as follows:
Plaintiff’s objection (Doc. # 17) is OVERRULED;
The Recommendation (Doc. # 15) is ADOPTED to the extent that it
recommends dismissal of this action for lack of subject-matter
jurisdiction based upon the Rooker-Feldman doctrine;1
Because subject-matter jurisdiction is lacking, the court need not address the
Recommendation’s alternative grounds for dismissal. See Casale v. Tillman, 558 F.3d 1258, 1259
n.1 (11th Cir. 2009).
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (Doc. # 9) is GRANTED;
This case is DISMISSED without prejudice for lack of subject-matter
It is further ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion to Compel (Doc. # 16) is
A separate final judgment will be entered.
DONE this 5th day of April, 2016.
/s/ W. Keith Watkins
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
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?