Sullivan v. Town of Derry, Public Works Dept.

Filing 5

ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS for 4 Order, Findings and Recommendations. Signed by Judge Donald W. Molloy on 4/14/2014. (APP, ) Copy mailed to Sullivan.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF MONTANA
MISSOULA DIVISION

BILLY BUDD SULLIVAN,

FILED

APR 14 2014
Clerk. U.S District Court

District Of Montana

Missoula

CV 14-33-M-DWM-JCL

Plaintiff,
ORDER

vs.

TOWN OF DERRY, PUBLIC WORKS

DEPT.,

Defendant.

Plaintiff Billy Budd Sullivan is proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis.
Sullivan submitted a document to the Court he titled as "APPEAL," in which he
stated he would like to appeal his "case [... Jthat is in the New Hampshire
Supreme Court[.]" (Doc. 1 at 1.) Magistrate Judge Jeremiah Lynch recommends
this action be dismissed for lack ofjurisdiction. (Doc. 4.)
Sullivan has not filed objections to Judge Lynch's Findings and
Recommendation. The Court reviews the findings and recommendations that are
not specifically objected to for clear error. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
Commodore Bus. Mach., Inc., 656 F.2d 1309, 1313 (9th Cir. 1981). Clear error

1

exists if the Court is left with a "definite and firm conviction that a mistake has
been committed." United States v. Syrax, 235 F.3d 422,427 (9th Cir. 2000).
The Court finds no clear error with Judge Lynch's determination that this
case is barred by either the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, see Rooker v. Fidelity Trust

Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Ct. ofAppeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462 (1983);
Carmona v. Carmona, 603 F.3d 1041,1050 (9th Cir. 2010) (stating that the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine "stands for the relatively straightforward principle that
federal district courts do not have jurisdiction to hear de facto appeals from state
court judgments. "), or if the matter before the New Hampshire Supreme Court is
still ongoing, the Younger doctrine, Younger v. Harris, 401 U.S. 37,43-45 (1971).
Accordingly, IT IS ORDERED that the Findings and Recommendation
(Doc. 4) are ADOPTED IN FULL.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that this action is DISNIISSED for lack of
jurisdiction.
Dated this

-'d-~

day of April, 2014.

2