Nolan-Bey v. McPherson County Court et al

Filing 8

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER adopting 5 Report and Recommendations. The case is dismissed for failure to state a claim. Signed by District Judge Eric F. Melgren on 01/25/2018. (aa)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF KANSAS

MARQUES NOLAN-BEY,
Plaintiff,
v.
McPHERSON CO. COURT, et al,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 17-1278-EFM

MEMORANDUM and ORDER
This matter comes before the Court on the Report and Recommendation of United States
Magistrate Judge Kenneth Gale that the District Court dismiss Plaintiff’s Complaint based upon
futility and failure to state a claim upon which relief may be granted. Plaintiff was given
fourteen days in which to serve and file his written objections to the recommendation. Plaintiff
timely filed, and the matter is ripe for this Court’s consideration.
Judge Gale recommended dismissal upon finding that Plaintiff’s Complaint, while
containing “an abundance of allegations and citations to legal authority” was nevertheless
“lacking a coherent narrative setting forth what the case is about.” Ultimately, Judge Gale
concluded that the case was in essence an appeal of a state court judgment, which appeal would
be prohibited by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.1
In response, Plaintiff filed a document entitled “Affidavit of Fact, Writ of Error, Dismiss
& Deny Allege Recommendation of January 11, 2018.” (Doc. 6). Like his initial Complaint,
this submission is difficult to follow, though it is much briefer. However, he makes no response
to conclusion of Judge Gale that his claims are likely barred by the Rooker-Feldman doctrine,
1

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462 (1983).

nor does he otherwise present arguments or authority in support of his claim for a justiciable
case. Instead, his response principally complains that his Complaint in this case, which he had
styled as “Affidavit of Fact, Notice to Reprimand Judgment” was “an exercise of right & NOT A
REQUEST OR PERMISSION – BUT A COMMAND . . . .” (capitalization per original). He
complains that his Affidavit was changed to a motion, construed to deny him access to the courts
and to deny him due process.
Citizen’s access to the Courts is limited to the presentation of a justiciable controversy
over which the federal courts (being courts of limited jurisdiction) have jurisdiction. This Court
agrees with Judge Gale that, to the extent Plaintiff’s original filing can be read to present a claim,
it is a claim which would be barred by law and over which this Court would not have
jurisdiction. Plaintiff has done nothing to rebut Judge Gale’s well founded legal conclusion that
Plaintiff’s Complaint (however he styles it) fails to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
Therefore, the Court adopts Judge Gale’s Report and Recommendation that the case be
dismissed.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the Report & Recommendation of Dismissal, Doc.
5, is here ADOPTED and this case is dismissed for failure to state a claim.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated this 25th day of January, 2018.

ERIC F. MELGREN
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE