Jackson v. U.S. Bank National Association

Filing 17

ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 15 ; signed by Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker (Chief Judge Robert J. Jonker, sdb)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION

IN RE: MELINDIA JACKSON,
Debtor.
__________________________________/
MELINDIA JACKSON,

CASE NO. 1:16-CV-369

Appellant,

HON ROBERT J. JONKER

v.
U.S. BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
successor in interest trustee of Wachovia Bank,
N.A., trustee of GSMPS Mortgage Loan
Trust 2004-1,
Appellee.
__________________________________/
ORDER APPROVING AND ADOPTING
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
The Court has reviewed Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation in this
matter (ECF No. 15) and Appellant’s Objections to the Report and Recommendation (ECF No. 16).
Under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, where, as here, a party has objected to portions of a
Report and Recommendation, “[t]he district judge . . . has a duty to reject the magistrate judge’s
recommendation unless, on de novo reconsideration, he or she finds it justified.” 12 WRIGHT,
MILLER, & MARCUS, FEDERAL PRACTICE AND PROCEDURE § 3070.2, at 381 (2d ed. 1997).
Specifically, the Rules provide that:
[t]he district judge must determine de novo any part of the magistrate
judge’s disposition that has been properly objected to. The district
judge may accept, reject, or modify the recommended disposition;

receive further evidence; or return the matter to the magistrate judge
with instructions.
FED R. CIV. P. 72(b)(3). De novo review in these circumstances requires at least a review of the
evidence before the Magistrate Judge. Hill v. Duriron Co., 656 F.2d 1208, 1215 (6th Cir. 1981).
The Court has reviewed de novo the claims and evidence presented to the Magistrate Judge; the
Report and Recommendation itself; and Appellant’s objections. After its review, the Court finds
that Magistrate Judge Green’s Report and Recommendation is factually sound and legally correct.
The Magistrate Judge recommends denying Appellant’s appeal from the U.S. Bankruptcy
Court and affirming the decision of the Bankruptcy Court, which dismissed Jackson’s adversary
complaint. (ECF No. 15). In her Objections, Appellant primarily reiterates and expands arguments
she presented in her motion papers. In a carefully crafted Report and Recommendation, the
Magistrate Judge laid out Appellant’s previous attempts to proceed in courts within this district.
and accurately addresses Appellant’s arguments. Nothing in Plaintiff’s Objections changes the
fundamental analysis that the Bankruptcy Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Appellant’s
adversary complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The Court agrees with the Magistrate
Judge’s conclusion for the very reasons the Report and Recommendation delineates.
ACCORDINGLY, IT IS ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation of the
Magistrate Judge (ECF No. 15) is approved and adopted as the opinion of the Court.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the decision of the Bankruptcy Court dismissing
Appellant’s adversary complaint is AFFIRMED.
This case is DISMISSED.

Date:

September 10, 2017

/s/ Robert J. Jonker
ROBERT J. JONKER
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2