Galt Ventures, Inc. v. Nolan

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting 6 Report and Recommendations. The court adopts the R&R and dismisses this action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3). The defendant's claims, along with this case, are dismissed without prejudice. Signed by District Judge J. Thomas Marten on 11/21/2017. (mam)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS
GALT VENTURES, INC. d/b/a
SPEEDY CASH #51,
Plaintiff,
v.
Case No. 17-1205-JTM-GEB
MARQUES NOLAN-BEY,
a.k.a. MARQUES NOLAN,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER ADOPTING MAGISTRATE JUDGE'S REPORT
AND RECOMMENDATION
This matter comes before the court on the Magistrate Judge’s Report and
Recommendation (“R&R”), filed September 25, 2017 (Dkt. 6), recommending that the
court dismiss defendant’s claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(B) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(h)(3). The Magistrate Judge
notified defendant of his ability to file objections within 14 days after being served with
a copy of the R&R. On November 3, 2017, defendant filed a document titled Affidavit
Summary Judgment (Dkt. 7).
Having reviewed the R&R and defendant’s affidavit, the court finds that the
Magistrate Judge fully and accurately considered defendant’s claims and governing
legal authority. The court agrees that the Rooker-Feldman doctrine deprives the court of
jurisdiction to overturn the state court’s judgment. See D.C. Cir. v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462,
476 (1983); Rooker v. Fid. Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415–16 (1923). The Rooker-Feldman

-1-

doctrine bars “a party losing in state court . . . from seeking what in substance would be
appellate review of the state judgment in a United States [trial] court.” Johnson v. De
Grandy, 512 U.S. 997, 1005–06 (1994). The court adopts the R&R and dismisses this
action for lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED this 21st day of November, 2017, that defendant’s
claims, along with this case, are dismissed without prejudice.

s/ J. Thomas Marten
J. Thomas Marten, Judge

-2-