Burnett et al v Fitzgerald et al

Filing 10

ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION 7 dismissing Plaintiffs' Complaint; Plaintiffs' Objection 9 is OVERRULED; Plaintiffs' Motion 8 for a Mediation Hearing is DISMISSED AS MOOT; case closed; signed by Judge Gordon J. Quist (Judge Gordon J. Quist, jmt)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
NORTHERN DIVISION

ANDREW B. BURNETT
and JEFFERY R. BURNETT,
Plaintiffs,

Case No. 2:11-CV-70

v.
HON. GORDON J. QUIST
JOHN FITZGERALD, et al.,
Defendants.
/
ORDER ADOPTING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
Plaintiffs, Andrew B. Burnett and Jeffrey R. Burnett, proceeding pro se, have sued a number
of Defendants alleging claims pursuant to the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. § 12101,
et seq., and other laws. On March 15, 2011, Magistrate Judge Greeley issued an order granting
Plaintiffs leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Magistrate Judge Greeley thereafter screened
Plaintiffs’ Complaint, as he was authorized to do by 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), to determine whether
it is frivolous, malicious, fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted, or seeks monetary
relief from a defendant immune from such relief. 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2); see also Benson v.
O'Brian, 179 F.3d 1014, 1016 (6th Cir. 1999) (holding that "§ 1915(e)(2) applies only to in forma
pauperis proceedings").

On May 31, 2011, Magistrate Judge Greeley issued a report and

recommendation that Plaintiffs’ Complaint be dismissed because this Court lacks jurisdiction over
Plaintiffs’ claims under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S.
413, 416, 44 S. Ct. 149, 150 (1923) and District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S.
462, 482, 103 S. Ct. 1303, 1315 (1983). Thus, Magistrate Judge Greeley recommended that
Plaintiffs’ claims be dismissed in their entirety.
As permitted by 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), Plaintiffs have filed an Objection to the Report and
Recommendation. Having conducted a de novo review of the Report and Recommendation,

Plaintiffs’ Objection, and the Complaint, the Court concludes that the Report and Recommendation
should be adopted.
Plaintiffs’ Objection is long, rambling, and largely incoherent. In sum, it is essentially
Plaintiff Jeffery Burnett’s written stream of consciousness. Despite its length, the Objection fails
to wholly address the magistrate judge’s conclusion that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by the RookerFeldman doctrine. The Court concurs with the magistrate judge’s assessment and concludes that
it lacks jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ Complaint under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
Apart from the basis for dismissal set forth in the Report and Recommendation, the Court
concludes that dismissal is also appropriate simply because Plaintiff fails to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted. That is, like the Objection, the Complaint is rambling and disjointed and fails
to set forth any cognizable claims. Finally, the Complaint is frivolous, at least in part, because it
continues to advance claims that have previously been dismissed as frivolous. Therefore,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Report and Recommendation issued May 31, 2011
(docket no. 7) is ADOPTED as the Opinion of the Court, and Plaintiffs’ Objection (docket no. 9)
is OVERRULED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Complaint is DISMISSED pursuant to 28
U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2) for the reasons that it is frivolous and fails to state a claim upon which relief
can be granted and because the Court lacks jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Plaintiffs’ Motion For A Mediation Hearing (docket no.
8) is DISMISSED AS MOOT.
A separate judgment will enter.
This case is concluded.

Dated: July 18, 2011

/s/ Gordon J. Quist
GORDON J. QUIST
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
2