BLANKENSHIP v. MAGAHA

Filing 50

ORDER ACCEPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION ; denying 31 Motion for Sanctions; adopting 45 Report and Recommendation.; granting 20 Motion to Dismiss. Signed by JUDGE MARK E WALKER on 12/13/13. Clerk to enter judgment. (deb)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
LAWRENCE L. BLANKENSHIP,
Plaintiff,
v.

CASE NO. 3:12-cv-216-MW/EMT

PAM CHILDERS,
Clerk of the Circuit Court,
Defendant.
______________________________/
ORDER ACCEPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
This Court has reviewed the Magistrate’s Report and Recommendation, ECF
No. 45, filed November 14, 2013, and has considered de novo Plaintiff’s
Objection, ECF No. 48, filed December 5, 2013, and Defendant’s Response, ECF
No. 49, filed December 9, 2013.
IT IS ORDERED:
This Court accepts and adopts the Report and Recommendation except for
its recommended dismissal of Plaintiff’s federal claims “with prejudice.”
Plaintiff’s federal claims shall be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction without
reference to prejudice. See Frederiksen v. City of Lockport, 384 F.3d 437, 438-39
(7th Cir. 2004) (“The Rooker-Feldman doctrine is a rule of federal jurisdiction. A
suit dismissed for lack of jurisdiction cannot also be dismissed ‘with prejudice’;
1

that’s a disposition on the merits, which only a court with jurisdiction may render.
‘No jurisdiction’ and ‘with prejudice’ are mutually exclusive. When the RookerFeldman doctrine applies, there is only one proper disposition: dismissal for lack
of federal jurisdiction. A jurisdictional disposition is conclusive on the
jurisdictional question: the plaintiff cannot re-file in federal court. But it is without
prejudice on the merits, which are open to review in state court to the extent the
state’s law of preclusion permits. . . . [T]he right disposition, when the RookerFeldman doctrine applies, is an order under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) dismissing the
suit for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.” (internal citations omitted)).
The Clerk shall enter judgment stating, “Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss,
ECF No. 20, is GRANTED; Plaintiff’s federal claims against Defendant are
dismissed for lack of jurisdiction; Plaintiff’s state law claims are dismissed
without prejudice to Plaintiff pursuing them in state court. Defendant’s Motion
for Sanctions, ECF No. 31, is DENIED.” The Clerk shall close the file.
SO ORDERED on December 13, 2013.
s/Mark E. Walker
United States District Judge

2